Judgments - Bail
Komal Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
the question that arises for consideration is whether liberty on the one hand and fair and effective investigation on the other, make out a case for extending the benefit under Section 438 CrPC. Needless to say "Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health, no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. Having stated about the Full Judgment
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH @ ARVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
In State of M.P. v. Rustam and others[5], this Court has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded, and the day on which challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being Full Judgment
DR.VINOD BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF M. P.
It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof Full Judgment
NEERU YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P AnD ANR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 Full Judgment