Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Courts have the power to cancel the bail and to examine the merits of the case in a case where the accused is released on default bail and released not on merits earlier. Such an interpretation would be in furtherance to the administration of justice.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that under Section 167 of the Code of
Madras High Court: In a criminal appeal filed challenging the extension of the remand period from 90 days to 180
Supreme Court: As Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram has sought review of the 3-judge bench verdict on the Prevention of Money Laundering
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ has, in 545-pages-long judgments, has dealt with various
Supreme Court: In a major verdict, the bench of UU Lalit and KM Joseph*, JJ has held that it is open for
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 167(2) CrPC, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, MM Shantanagoudar and Vineet Sarah, JJ has said that the
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha, J., while allowing the present application for bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 made
Right to default bail a fundamental right granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled.
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam, JJ., while addressing the matter of Custodial Death of “Jayaraj &
Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) CrPC and set aside