• ClipSaver
ClipSaver
Русские видео
  • Смешные видео
  • Приколы
  • Обзоры
  • Новости
  • Тесты
  • Спорт
  • Любовь
  • Музыка
  • Разное
Сейчас в тренде
  • Фейгин лайф
  • Три кота
  • Самвел адамян
  • А4 ютуб
  • скачать бит
  • гитара с нуля
Иностранные видео
  • Funny Babies
  • Funny Sports
  • Funny Animals
  • Funny Pranks
  • Funny Magic
  • Funny Vines
  • Funny Virals
  • Funny K-Pop

Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025 скачать в хорошем качестве

Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025 4 месяца назад

скачать видео

скачать mp3

скачать mp4

поделиться

телефон с камерой

телефон с видео

бесплатно

загрузить,

Не удается загрузить Youtube-плеер. Проверьте блокировку Youtube в вашей сети.
Повторяем попытку...
Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025
  • Поделиться ВК
  • Поделиться в ОК
  •  
  •  


Скачать видео с ютуб по ссылке или смотреть без блокировок на сайте: Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025 в качестве 4k

У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025 или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:

  • Информация по загрузке:

Скачать mp3 с ютуба отдельным файлом. Бесплатный рингтон Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025 в формате MP3:


Если кнопки скачивания не загрузились НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru



Cancellation of Bail l Supreme Court l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025

In This Video I Have Discussed That- The Supreme Court, while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused under an attempt to murder charge, observed that an individual's liberty is a precious right under the Constitution, and courts should be cautious before interfering with it. Elaborating, the Court said that since there was no evidence showing that the accused's conduct after bail warranted deprivation of his liberty, the High Court had no valid reason to cancel the bail. “Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” observed Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan. In the present case, the appellant-accused was charged under Section 307 (attempt to murder) under the IPC. Since the trial was ongoing and out of 43 witnesses, 17 witnesses had been examined by the prosecution and the appellant was in jail for two years, he applied for bail. The same was granted; however, in appeal, the High Court cancelled the bail. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Apex Court. At the outset, the Court perused its decision in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr. Therein, the Court had discussed certain factors to consider, while cancelling the bail. This included misusing liberty, influencing the witnesses, tampering with evidence, resorting to delaying tactics or if the order granting bail is perverse or illegal. The Court noted that the High Court did not consider any of these factors. “Instead, what the High Court did was to embark upon conducting sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not. According to the High Court, presence of the appellant and the co-accused at the scene of occurrence and causing of injury to the complainant-PW1 by the appellant being undisputed and notwithstanding that the injury caused by him is simple, there was common intention for which Section 34 of the IPC is attracted.” In view of this, the Court noted that the High Court erred and was unjustified in cancelling the bail. Thus, while setting aside the impugned judgment, the Court restored the order granting bail to the appellant. The Court also made it clear that it has not gone into the case's merits. Before parting, the Court said that the appellant is required to appear before the Trial Court on the dates fixed. Any failure on the appellant's part will lead to the cancellation of his bail. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Dr. Jinesh Soni 9772946899

Comments

Контактный email для правообладателей: [email protected] © 2017 - 2025

Отказ от ответственности - Disclaimer Правообладателям - DMCA Условия использования сайта - TOS



Карта сайта 1 Карта сайта 2 Карта сайта 3 Карта сайта 4 Карта сайта 5