Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Manika Namdeorao Bhosale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 2018 cites

Laxman Irappa Hatti And Suresh Irappa ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 15 July, 2004

8. As has been observed by this Court in the case of Laxman Irappa Hatti and another (supra), the law is well settled that the order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude the applicants from filing the subsequent bail ::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:32:26 ::: {5} 937 BA 1372 OF 2018 & ORS.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kajad on 6 September, 2001

application or successive bail application. However, the law is equally well settled that the successive bail applications are ordinarily not to be entertained without any change in the circumstances. Otherwise as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kajad [(2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 673), it would amount to seek review of the earlier Judgment, which is not permissible under the criminal law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 330 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao on 29 September, 1989

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subharao (AIR 1989 SC 2292) has observed that "Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation, which would mean a substantial change having a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 232 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005

In another Judgment in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarakar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan [2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 1030 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications were rejected the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier findings become absolute. This is the limited area in which as accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2834 - Full Document
1