Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.47 seconds)
Raja Bhaiya Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2021 cites

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

L. J. (Supp) 265 , the court considered the Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453 : (AIR 2001 SC 1910 : 2001 AIR SCW 1500) [Three Judge Bench] and followed the Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 = 1994 AIR SCW 3857 and said if the application filed for default bail on grounds that charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days and before consideration of the same and before being released on bail, charge-sheet is filed, than said right to be released on bail, can be only on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 92 - J S Verma - Full Document

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur And Others Etc. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 July, 1994

In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court considered the cases of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1994) 4 SCC 602, Sanjay Dutt Vs.State of Maharashtra (1994) 5 SCC 410, Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs.State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453, Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67, Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 718, Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh Vs.State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 722, Union of India Vs. Nirala Yadav (2014) 9 SCC 457, Pragya Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445, Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2020 SCC online SC 824 and observed as under − "It appears that the term 'if not already availed of' mentioned supra has become a bone of contention as Court have differed in their opinions as to whether the right to default bail is availed of and enforced as soon as the application for bail is filed; or when the bail petition is finally disposed of by the Court; or only when the accused actually furnishes bail as directed by the Court and is released from custody."
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 328 - Full Document

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

L. J. 1652], Three judges bench of Apex court referred the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410 : (1994 AIR SCW 3857) and said that S. 167 (2) does not create indefeasible right on accused to exercise it at any time. If charge sheet filed and accused in custody on basis of order of remand than he cannot be released on bail on ground that charge-sheet was not submitted within statutory period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 365 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Dr.Kumud Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2012

In Ashok Sharma vs. State of M.P. 1993 JLJ 99, it has been held that last date, which is Sunday or Holiday will also be counted in 90th day because Sec. 10 of General Clauses Act 1897 will not be applicable. The court said that Word "Magistrate" used in section 56, 57 and 167 not mean the "Court of Magistrate". If the last date of remand is Holiday, the accused will be produced before the magistrate.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2218 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next