Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
A.Jayaraj vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2009 cites

Mohan Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 20 February, 1978

6. I shall refer to the decisions relied on by learned counsel. Mohan Singh V. Union Territory (AIR 1978 1095) was a case where simultaneous bail petitions were moved before the learned Sessions Judge and the High court. Learned Sessions Judge granted bail without noticing that a similar petition was being considered by the High court. High court cancelled the bail granted by learned Sessions Judge. The Supreme court observed on the facts of the case that cancellation of bail by the High court was not required. That however was not a case where learned Sessions Judge had granted bail notwithstanding refusal of bail by the High Court. It is only that when learned Sessions Judge granted bail, another petition seeking Crl.R.P.No.2207 of 2009 8 the same relief was pending in the High court. Therefore, order of learned Sessions Judge did not involve a violation of discipline or propriety.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 99 - V R Iyer - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Narayanappa on 1 February, 1991

The decision of Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka V. Narayanappa (1992 CRI.L.J.225) also did not apply to the facts of the present case. There, learned Sessions Judge who had otherwise the power to grant anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Code did so but without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case. That order remained in force for about two years. Attempt was made to cancel the order thereafter. The High Court observed that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge having remained in force for two years and the bail obtained by accused not shown to have been misused there was no necessity of the cancellation of the order. I must bear in mind, that also did not involve any illegality or violation of judicial discipline and propriety.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

R.Rathinam vs State By Dsp, District Crime Branch on 8 February, 2000

4. It is true that it is only when petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.1023 of 2009 before learned Sessions Judge requesting to lift/modify the conditions imposed by learned magistrate while granting bail that public prosecutor chose to file Crl.M.P.No.1831 of 2009 for cancellation of bail. For exercise of power of Sessions Judge under Secs.439(2) of the Code for cancellation of bail, it does not require a motion by any of the parties concerned. That provision confers power on the High Court and the Sessions court to cancel the bail granted by a court subordinate to it. The Supreme Court has held in R.Rathinam V. The State and another (AIR 2000 SC 1851) that Superior court can cancel the bail granted by a subordinate court even in exercise of its Suo motu power. What is required is to bring to the notice of the High court or Sessions court, as the case may be about the illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the matter of grant of bail. Therefore, that a petition for cancellation of bail came from the public prosecutor only when petitioner moved learned Sessions Judge for Crl.R.P.No.2207 of 2009 5 lifting/modification of condition is of no consequence and did not affect power of learned Sessions Judge to interfere under Sec.439(2) of the Code if otherwise such a course was found necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Bimla Devi (Smt) vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 20 January, 1994

In Smt.Bimla Devi V. State of Bihar and others (1994 CRI.L.J.638) the magistrate granted bail inspite of its rejection on two earlier occasions by the High court. The Supreme court observed in para 2 of the judgment, "in view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate at a later stage has himself cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to pass any order with regard to the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of bail but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned magistrate is not only contrary to the settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Faizanuddin - Full Document

Shahzad Hasan Khan vs Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr on 28 April, 1987

(emphasis supplied) Reference was made to an earlier decision of the supreme Court in Shahzad Hassan Khan V. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (AIR 1987 SC 1613). There, Supreme court deprecated the practice of successive bail petitions being posted before different benches of the same High court. It was held that, Crl.R.P.No.2207 of 2009 7 "Where after three successive bail applications of an accused involved in a murder case were rejected by a particular Judge of the High court and subsequent application was also directed by another Judge sitting as vacation Judge to be placed before the former Judge who was afterwards available as vacation Judge, the latter should not have, on a subsequent date, to the passing of the order recalled his order and entertained the bail application and ordered the release of the accused in disregard of the prevailing practice of the High Court that subsequent bail application should be placed before the Judge who had disposed of the earlier application."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 224 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1