Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr on 1 September, 2004 cites

Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 1995

If the protective umbrella of Section 438 is extended beyond what was laid down in Salauddin's case (supra) the result would be clear bypassing of what is mandated in Section 439 regarding custody. In other words, till the applicant avails remedies upto higher Courts, the requirements of Section 439 become dead letter. No part of a statute can be rendered redundant in that manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 240 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors on 10 March, 1980

In view of the clear language of Section 439 and in view of the decision of this Court in Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 785), there cannot be any doubt that unless a person is in custody, an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code would not be maintainable. The question when a person can be said to be in custody within the meaning of Section 439 of the Code came up for consideration before this Court in the aforesaid decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 482 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next