Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1999 (3) TMI 670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l were on an inimical terms, cases in Criminal Courts were pending between the parties. The co-accused Bhuggal and others had made efforts for the arrest of the deceased Yakeenuddin Qureshi, but the High Court had put embargo on the arrest of the deceased; this had been felt by the co-accused Bhuggal and others. On 29-1-1997 one day before the occurrence, the co-accused Bhuggal had told the informant (brother of the deceased) that he had, saved the deceased from the High Court but he. would not be able to save him from the accused. persons. On 30-1-1997 at about 6.30 a.m. the deceased and the informant when came out of, the mosque after offering prayers, the seven accused persons Bhuggal, Haroon, Yunis, son of Noora, Iliyas, Yunis, son of N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ejected by another Bench of this Court, not only once but twice, the accused-applicants are not entitled to bail. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Smt. Sita Pati v. State (1996) 20 All Cri R 35; Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 20 All Cri R 867 : 1997 AIHC 1051; and a Division Bench of this Court in Chander alias Chandra v. State of U.P. (1998) 22 All Cri R 356:1998 All LJ 870. 5. In Smt. Sita Pati v. State (supra), this Court has held that the facts of each case differ and even a seemingly insignificant fact may change the entire complexion of the case. If bail is granted or refused in one case it does not have the effect of laying down in law and as such a bail order cannot be cited as precedent. Ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot cancel the bail granted to a co-accused by another Judge on the ground that the same had been granted in flagrant violation of well-settled principles. If he considers it necessary in the interest of justice, he may, after expressing his views, refer the matter to Judge who had granted bail, for appropriate orders. (4) If it appears that a bail order has been passed in" favour of an accused on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents, it is open to any Judge to initiate action for cancellation of bail. 6. In the present case, the order granting bail to the accused Quayum, is not without reasons, the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. P. Garg shows that the several respects of the case have been taken into considerati....