SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1128

S.B.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
C. B. I. through its Director – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.4.2006 of the Patna High Court by which the appellants application for bail has been dismissed, but with the following observations:

"Since the petitioner has actually remained in custody in connection with the present case for about 5 years and 7 months as per submission on behalf of petitioner, hence, considering the spirit of the last order of the Apex Court dated 3.10.05, the trial court is directed to hold trial at least for about three days in a week on an average so that the examination of prosecution witnesses may be concluded without any delay preferably within three months. Thereafter, the court shall ask the defence to submit the list of its witnesses and make efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months. If the trial cannot conclude within the aforesaid period of six months from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his pray for bail.

With this observation, this application for bail is dismissed at this stage."

3. The appellant is an accused in a case under Secti















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top