Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.52 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004
It
is pointed out that in Mehboob's case (supra) and Amarmani's
case (supra) the bail was cancelled as it was established that
there were serious attempts to tamper with the evidence and
to interfere and sidetrack the investigation and threaten the
witnesses.
Panchanan Mishra vs Digambar Mishra & Ors on 17 January, 2005
v.
Sanjay Gandhi (1978 (2) SCC 411), Bhagirathsinh v. State of
Gujarat (1984 (1) SCC 284), Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of
Maharashtra (1992 (4) SCC 272), Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana (1995 (1) SCC 349), Ramcharan v. State of M.P.
(2004 (13) SCC 617), Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362), Nityanand Rai v. State of
Bihar (2005 (4) SCC 178), State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi
(2005 (8) SCC 21) and Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra
(2005 (3) SCC 143). It is pointed out that the common thread
passing through the aforesaid decisions is that there is no
scope for cancellation of bail on re-appreciation of evidence.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr on 12 March, 2004
10. Though the High Court appears to have used the
expression 'ban' on the grant of bail in serious offences,
actually it is referable to the decision of this Court in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.
(2004 (7) SCC 528) In para 11 it was noted as follows:
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of Maharashtra & ... on 3 May, 2001
14. The perversity as highlighted in Puran's case (supra) can
also flow from the fact that as noted above, irrelevant
materials have been taken into consideration adding
vulnerability to the order granting bail. The irrelevant
materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial
nature. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been
swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin had shady reputation
and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor
which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature
of the acts which ought to have been considered. By way of
illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea
while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was a
hardened criminal. That certainly is not a factor which can be
taken into account. Another significant factor which was
highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR
allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter.
The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. The accused
was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials
were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam
Singh and Jai Singh. The first named Abdul Rehman had
lodged the FIR. It is pointed out from the General Diary in
respect of entry on 26.11.2005 that accused Dinesh was
present. In FIR CR-I 5/2005 also the presence of Dinesh has
been noted. The relevance of these factors does not appear to
have been noticed by the High Court. In other words, relevant
materials were kept out of consideration. Once it is concluded
that bail was granted on untenable grounds, the plea of
absence of supervening circumstances has no leg to stand.