Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.35 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr on 3 October, 1997
In State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another[3], which relates to
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 406 IPC arisen out of
leakage of question paper in respect of examination conducted by Public
Service Commission, this Court has made following observations: -
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010
“12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising
the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the
respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations
involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order,
though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the
learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents
are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police
it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of
unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public
interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the
nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of
it on “the career of millions of students”, learned Single Judge should not
have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very
thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through
Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-
arrest bail order.”
In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others[4], in
sub-para (viii) of para 112, this Court has held as under: -
“(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;”
In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another[5], laying down
the principles regarding cancellation of anticipatory bail in sub paras
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 1 September, 2015
“12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising
the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the
respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations
involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order,
though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the
learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents
are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police
it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of
unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public
interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the
nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of
it on “the career of millions of students”, learned Single Judge should not
have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very
thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through
Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-
arrest bail order.”
In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others[4], in
sub-para (viii) of para 112, this Court has held as under: -
“(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;”
In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another[5], laying down
the principles regarding cancellation of anticipatory bail in sub paras