Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ramji Prasad vs Rattan Kumar Jaiswal And Anr. on 18 April, 2000
In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal it was held by this Court that
in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it
is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of
suspension of sentence can be granted. The impugned
order of the High Court does not meet the
requirement.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
{(2001)6 SCC 338)} and in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT
2004 (3) SC 442]."
State Of Haryana vs Hasmat on 26 July, 2004
6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana v. Hasmat, as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 175, in
paragraph nos. 6 to 9, as under:
Vijay Kumar vs Narendra Kumar Gupta on 24 March, 2011
In Vijay Kumar case it was held that in
considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a
serious offence like murder punishable under Section
302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant
factors like the nature of accusation made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and
the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after
they have been convicted for committing the serious
offence of murder. These aspects have not been
considered by the High Court, which passing the
impugned order."
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Khilari vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 13 March, 2008
4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Khilari v. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882
especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under:
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Anwari Begum vs Sher Mohammad And Anr on 19 September, 2005
"10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. [2005 (7)
S.C.C. 326] it was, inter alia, observed as follows: