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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 148

M.F.SALDANHA
C. T. PONNAPPA @ CHUPPI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.S.PRADEEP, S.S.Koti

SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a bail application with a difference which has necessitate us to have to not only call for the records but on the subsequer occasion to send for the double barrel gun which was the weapo involved in the commission of the offence and to hear arguments i considerable detail from the respective Counsel. The appellant why was the original accused before the Sessions Court has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and he has appealed against the conviction and sentence the appeal having been admitted, I A. I has been preferred praying for his release on bail pending the disposal of the appeal. We refrali from referring to the facts on record except where absolutely essentia because the law postulates that the appeal Court need not and certainly will not embark upon an evaluation of the evidence at the stage of deciding an application for interim bail. The principles on which a Court would consider an application for bail at the pretria stage are considerably different from those on which an appeal Court would decide such an application at the post conviction stage, the obvious reason being that there is already an asse





















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