Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)
Bangaru Laxman vs State Thr. Cbi & Anr. on 13 December, 2011 cites

Ayodhya Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 1972

The Rajasthan High Court has in Ayodhya Singh v. State 1973 Cri.L.J. 768 and Lallu v. State 1979 Raj LW 465 taken the view that the provisions in this regard are mandatory, and that Court cannot go behind the wisdom of the legislature as expressly laid down under Section 306, Cr. P.C. In the former case the circumstance that the disposal of the case was likely to take a long period of time as the prosecution had cited 174 witnesses, was not considered as valid ground for bail when the law prohibits any such release till the termination of the trial. In Mukesh Ramchandra Reddy 1958 Cri.L.J. 343, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has as well interpreted the word "shall" in the said provisions as primarily obligatory and casting a duty on the Court to detain an accused to whom pardon has been tendered, in custody until the termination of the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 47 - H R Khanna - Full Document

A.L. Mehra vs The State on 25 June, 1957

There is no reason to suppose that the machinery of law would not be able to give protection to the petitioner in case any adventurism is sought to be displayed by his confederates, or their supporters. The conduct of the petitioner in seeking his release itself shows that he carries no apprehensions. It would not be, therefore, correct for the Court to still create such fears and profess to provide him unsolicited protection by detaining him for indefinite period. Thus in the case of A. L. Mehra, (1958 Cri LJ 413) (supra) the Punjab High Court released the approver from confinement in exercise of inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of court, finding that he had been in confinement for several months.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

13A. The Supreme Court has further in the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 observed that it Crl.M.C. 1906/2011 Page 11 of 15 is not a valid argument to say that the expression "personal liberty" in Art. 21 must be so interpreted so as to avoid overlapping between that Article and Art. 19(1). The expression "personal liberty" in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Art. 19. It was further observed that if a law depriving a person of "personal liberty"
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010

10. In the present case firstly in the interest of justice and the fundamental right to life and liberty of Respondent No.2 when his statement has already been recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, no useful purpose will be served to send him in custody now. Further Respondent No.2 has already been granted an order of anticipatory bail, which enures to his Crl.M.C. 1906/2011 Page 14 of 15 benefit till conclusion of the trial as held in Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694. In view of the order of anticipatory bail directing sending Respondent No.2 custody is not possible as the moment he is arrested he has to be released on bail as directed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail. The evidence of Respondent No.2 and all other prosecution witnesses has been recorded. The case does not fall in the ambit of Section 308 Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 though not on bail technically, however, even if this Court directs him to be arrested, would have to be released on bail in view of the anticipatory bail order. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 21316 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next