Tag: Bail

Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980

Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.

Legislative and Legal changes to the US federal bail system

USA

This list cannot detail every event that has altered the manner in which bail has changed. Instead, the focus of this timeline provides evidence that governmental actors must maintain high levels of accountability and transparency through reliance on evidence-based practice. Additionally, this list is meant to emphasize the democratic tradition in which various, committed actors work diligently and continually to enhance the ideals of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and due process that are central to democracy.

Prosecution fails to explain injuries of accused, this lacuna entitles to bail-Allahabad HC-3/9/2020

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused as well and prima facie this lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case, entitles the applicants to be enlarged on bail. However, there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case but that would apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial.

Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception u/s 37(1)of NDPS Act- Explain

Very recently, in the matter of State of Kerala Etc. v. Rajesh Etc.[AIR 2020 SC 721], their Lordships of the Supreme Court followed the principles of law laid down in Ram Samujh’s case (supra) and clearly held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act commences with non-obstante clause and the conditions enumerated in Section 37(1)(b) have to be complied before admitting the accused on bail of the aforesaid offence under the Act in case of commercial quantity.

Bail Act 1976

United Kingdom

An Act to make provision in relation to bail in or in connection with criminal proceedings in England and Wales, to make it an offence to agree to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings, to make provision for legal aid limited to questions of bail in certain cases and for legal aid for persons kept in custody for inquiries or reports, to extend the powers of coroners to grant bail and for connected purposes.

Naresh Das vs State of Tripura- Bail Guidelines by Tripura High Court-2015

However, the primary purpose of keeping a person under detention and not granting him bail is not to punish him because punishment can be inflicted only after he is convicted but to ensure that investigation is proper; that the prosecution evidence shall not be tampered with; that the accused shall not try to influence the witnesses; that the trial shall not be unduly delayed and other similar reasons.

Vikas Dubey vs State Of U.P-21/07/2010

Let the applicant Vikas Dubey involved in Case Crime No. 101 of 2010, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. New Agra, District Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions

Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011

Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.

Jack Sebastian Shepherd -v- The Queen – 20/6/ 2019

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)-The states from whom extradition is sought will recognise that breach of bail is a separate matter in the UK. With an explanation of the way in which breach will be considered by the court and on the basis that punishing those who fail to answer bail is a necessary component of an effective criminal justice system which releases most of those charged with crime rather than requiring their detention in custody. In every case the consent of the state from which extradition is sought should unequivocally be requested with an explanation of why this is necessary. If, in those circumstances, criminal proceedings have to be commenced, it should not be impracticable to start such proceedings at the time that extradition is sought.

RAM SARAN PAL @ LALLU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH- 21/04/2017

Grant of bail – The Appellant is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in custody for more than six years. He had moved the High Court for grant of bail on an earlier occasion. However, by order the High Court rejected the bail application with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months – The Court cannot permit the appellant to continue incarceration for a further period without the adjudication being finalized

SRI MURUGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 302 — Offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 of IPC — Petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to the investigation — Breach of any one of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move this Court for cancellation of the bail granted

SRI DASAIAH AND SMT. RATHNAMMAVs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Cancellation of bail granted — Petitioners having been unsuccessful in obtaining bail before jurisdictional Sessions Court are before the Court praying for being enlarged on bail — Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sessions Court without express permission and they shall appear before Sessions Court on all the dates of hearing — If any such incident is reported prosecution is at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of bail granted

DAL CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Cancellation of Bail — Petitioners before this Court for the purpose of getting bail that deceased for whose murder they have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment was still alive. The misrepresentation made by the petitioners is highly reprehensible — The bail granted to the petitioners is cancelled.