TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses habeas corpus petition, transfer request, and bail application, emphasizing fair trial principles and timely resolution.</h1> <h3>COL. B. RAMACHANDRA RAO (DR.) Versus STATE OF ORISSA</h3> COL. B. RAMACHANDRA RAO (DR.) Versus STATE OF ORISSA - 1971 AIR 2197, 1972 (3) SCC 256 Issues:1. Habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of confinement in sub-jail.2. Transfer petition seeking transfer of criminal cases.3. Bail application during the pendency of criminal cases.Habeas Corpus Petition Analysis:The petitioner, a self-described individual confined in a sub-jail, alleged his transfer without legal authority and lack of production before a magistrate. He made serious allegations against various officials and presented annexures to support his claims. The State countered with details of criminal charges, convictions, and legal proceedings against the petitioner, highlighting the delay in trial due to illness and multiple petitions filed. The Court noted the absence of specific orders but concluded that the current confinement did not appear illegal, refusing to grant habeas corpus based on unsubstantiated allegations.Transfer Petition Analysis:The transfer petition sought to move criminal cases from Bhubaneshwar to another state for expediency. The Court found no grounds justifying the transfer under Section 527 of the Cr.P.C., leading to the dismissal of the petition without further consideration.Bail Application Analysis:The petitioner's plea for bail during the ongoing criminal cases faced obstacles, including uncertainty regarding the status of a previous sentence and prior refusals of bail applications in Orissa. The Court highlighted the petitioner's option to challenge previous bail refusals in the High Court and emphasized the need for a fair trial. While dismissing the bail plea in the current proceedings, the Court directed the trial Court to expedite the cases and encouraged both parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary delays.In the final judgment, both the habeas corpus and transfer petitions were dismissed. The Court acknowledged the assistance of amicus curiae and emphasized the importance of fair trial proceedings and timely case disposal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
