Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Girjesh Chandra Srivastava vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022 cites

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

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 while holding that a Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and that a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit need not be undertaken although there is need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted. It has further been held that at the time of consideration of second or subsequent bail application, there is onus on the Court to consider the grounds on which earlier bail application had been rejected and it is only after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then specific reason should be indicated why the subsequent bail application is being granted in spite of earlier rejection. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2834 - Full Document

Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb on 1 February, 2021

In Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the aspect of liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and elucidates that it could cover within its protected ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and speedy trial. It has been held that ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. It has also been held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. The relevant portion of judgment is as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1436 - S Kant - Full Document

S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representrial ... vs Union Of India on 7 October, 1994

In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under Trial Prisoners) v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that under trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 478 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next