M.KATJU, SEHO KUMAR SINGH, SUNIL AMBWANI, IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, K.K.MISRA, POONAM SRIVASTAVA, RAVINDRA SINGH
AMARAWALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS Full bench is constituted to consider the following questions :1. Whether the arrest of an accused is a must If cognizable offence is disclosed in the fir or in a criminal complaint; 2. Whether the High Court can direct the subordinate Courts to decide the Bail Application on the same day it is filed; and 3. Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 reported in 1995 (3) All Cri C 375 : (1996 cri LJ 1309) has been correctly decided by the five -Judge Full Bench of this Court.
( 2 ) IN the case of Dr. Vinod Narain (Writ petition No. 3643 of 1992) it was held : "for the reasons recorded separately this Full bench unanimously holds that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Session as the case may be, to consider the bail application time schedule for concluding the bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, the decision rendered in Dr. Hidayat Hussain khan v. State of U. P. , (1992 Cri LJ 3534) is overruled and the decision rendered in Writ petition No. 919 of 1992 (reported in 1994 all LJ 50) Noor Mohd. v. State of
Raj Deo Sharrna v. State of Bihar
Unntkrishnan v. State of A. P.
Referred To : Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.
Dr. Hidayat Hussain Khan v. State of U.P.
Prarnod Kumar Manglik v. Sadhana Rani
Ramesh Chandra Kapil v. Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.