Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 September, 2020 cites

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

" This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document

S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representrial ... vs Union Of India on 7 October, 1994

"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 478 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Shaheen Welfare Association vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 1996

"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 286 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2020 20:18:43 :::HCHP 10 satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35378 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next