Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)
Sushant Muttreja (Currently In ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2022 cites

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 November, 2020

68. Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the Criminal Courts. Any conscious failure by the Criminal Courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the Criminal Court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court must uphold the constitutional thrust with responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a high priest. This Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427, has observed that:xxxx
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 529 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Sunil Shakt vs State on 25 May, 2001

24. Admittedly, the chargesheet has since been filed; the trial has not yet begin; there are numerous witnesses to be examined and it would take years to examine them; there is no possibility of dropping of evidence; the petitioners are not at flight risk as their passports have since been surrendered; they were earlier released on interim bail and did not misuse their liberty and have been in judicial custody for the last more than five years; the applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C.; all evidence being documentary and in custody of Investigating Officer; hence, tempering is ruled out as is already in the sole custody of the State. Further the accused have been giving various schemes, including of upfront payments, though not accepted as they being in jail. Further admittedly, the applicants have already been granted bail in three other FIRs pending adjudication before the District Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of the law discussed above viz. Satender Kumar Antil (supra) Sunil Shakt (supra) and others, as also the facts stated above more specifically in paras 11, 12, 13, 24 above; I admit both the accused to bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.5.00 lacs each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court in each of the FIR. The petitioners are directed to keep their mobile location app open at all time. They shall not leave the country without permission of the learned Trial Court and shall not threaten/coerce/influence the complainants/victims in any manner lest it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sharad Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 June, 2011

"15. Thus, considering the facts stated above and relying upon Sharad Kumar & Others vs CBI 2011(126) DRJ 525, where bail was granted for an offence under Section 409 IPC, and also considering the accused is in custody since 09.11.2019, for almost two years and the investigation being complete, the accused is hereby admitted to bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lac with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate on following conditions:-
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 39 - A Bharihoke - Full Document
1   2 Next