Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.22 seconds)
Alex @ Alexpandiyan vs / on 17 October, 2023 cites

Sunjay Datt vs State (Ii) on 9 September, 1994

18.6. However, the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt [Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1433] cannot be interpreted so as to mean that even where the accused has promptly exercised his right under Section 167(2) and indicated his willingness to furnish bail, he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/34 Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.44185, 44187 and 44188 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.14923, 14926 and 14927 of 2023 can be denied bail on account of delay in deciding his application or erroneous rejection of the same. Nor can he be kept detained in custody on account of subterfuge of the prosecution in filing a police report or additional complaint on the same day that the bail application is filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 92 - J S Verma - Full Document

Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001

24. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, particularly the Constitutional Bench judgment (Sanjay Dutt case) and three Judges Bench judgement (Uday Mohanlal Acharya case) as well the Division Bench judgment of this High Court (Kannan case) read along with the view of the Single Judge in Punaekkar Seetharaman Dikula case, we find one opinion expressed uniformly by all Courts is that the accused, who is entitled for default bail, should ‘avail it’. Meaning, seek for bail under Section 167 of CrPC before filing of Final Report and express his readiness to offer surety. If the prosecution to defeat the said accrued right, even if file the Final Report soon after the bail petition or during the hearing of the bail petition or just before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/34 Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.44185, 44187 and 44188 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.14923, 14926 and 14927 of 2023 furnishing surety, the right accrued will not extinguish the right gained by the accused. Contrarily, if the accused failed to seek bail, though right to seek default bail accrued but not avail till the filing of the Final Report or after availing bail, fail to furnish surety, within the time prescribed or if time not prescribed, surety not furnished within a reasonable time explaining the reason for not furnishing the surety in time, then the right shall get extinguished on filing of Final Report. The reason for delay in not furnishing the surety must relate to external factors not within the control of the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 324 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013

24. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, particularly the Constitutional Bench judgment (Sanjay Dutt case) and three Judges Bench judgement (Uday Mohanlal Acharya case) as well the Division Bench judgment of this High Court (Kannan case) read along with the view of the Single Judge in Punaekkar Seetharaman Dikula case, we find one opinion expressed uniformly by all Courts is that the accused, who is entitled for default bail, should ‘avail it’. Meaning, seek for bail under Section 167 of CrPC before filing of Final Report and express his readiness to offer surety. If the prosecution to defeat the said accrued right, even if file the Final Report soon after the bail petition or during the hearing of the bail petition or just before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/34 Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.44185, 44187 and 44188 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.14923, 14926 and 14927 of 2023 furnishing surety, the right accrued will not extinguish the right gained by the accused. Contrarily, if the accused failed to seek bail, though right to seek default bail accrued but not avail till the filing of the Final Report or after availing bail, fail to furnish surety, within the time prescribed or if time not prescribed, surety not furnished within a reasonable time explaining the reason for not furnishing the surety in time, then the right shall get extinguished on filing of Final Report. The reason for delay in not furnishing the surety must relate to external factors not within the control of the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 365 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 Next