BAIL ORDER FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 364A INDIAN PENAL CODE, Dheeraj Singh Vs. State, (2005) 07 DEL CK 0027


Dheeraj Singh Vs. State, (2005) 07 DEL CK 0027

(TO GRANT BAIL UNDER SECTION 364A IPC DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT BY EXAMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE OFFENCE AS WELL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE ACCUSED, AT THIS PRIMA FACIE STAGE, ONE CANNOT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY SAY THAT AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 364A IPC HAS DEFINITELY BEEN COMMITTED.THEREFORE, WHEN REASONABLE DOUBTS, PRIMA FACIE APPEAR IN THE MATTER, THE BAIL APPLICATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE STAND POINT OF NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED NOT BEING SECURED AT THE TRIAL, REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF WITNESSES BEING TAMPERED WITH AND LARGER INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC OR THE STATE.)







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge.

Image
All India Union Bank Officer Vs. Brajeshwar Sharma, (2020) 09 MAD CK 0001 ( Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. )
Read more

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 167 OF THE CR.P.C. AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 43(D)(2) OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967

Image
Khalid Vs. State (GOVT. Of NCT Of Delhi), (2020) 09 DEL CK 0033 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the decision to extend the judicial custody of an accused seriously affects the accused and the principles of natural justice clearly require that such an accused be granted the right to oppose the passing of any such order. Clearly for the right to be more meaningful, it would also be apposite to disclose the detailed reasons for seeking such an order which extends the time for completion of investigation accruing out of the proviso to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D)(2) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for investigations under UAPA. However, the rights ofthe accused in this regard have to be necessarily curtailed by the necessity to conceal such reasons from the accused and not make it public. This is because,at this stage, the investigation is incomplete and disclosing the manner in which investigation has proceeded and ...
Read more

Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.

Image
  Juhi Chawla & Ors Vs. Science And Engineering Research Board & Ors; (2021) 06 DEL CK 0035 Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.
Read more