MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK (HARYANA) INDIA

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “Law Relating to Arrest, Remand and Bail in
India: A Study of Judicial Trends” by Jasbir Singh,, a Research Scholar of Department of
Law, M.D. University, Rohtak under my supervision and guidance. I recommend that the
thesis may be accepted by the University for Evaluation since it meets the requirements’ laid
down by M.D. University, Rohtak for awarding the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law.

Date: Dr. Jaswant Saini

Place: Rohtak (Supervisor)

Countersigned by
Prof. (Dr.) Kavita Dhull
Head & Dean
Faculty of Law
M.D. University, Rohtak

2
 DECLARATION

I state that this Research work titled “Law Relating to Arrest, Remand and Bail in India:
A Study of Judicial Trends” submitted to the Faculty of Law, Maharshi Dayanand
University, Rohtak is a benchmark of original work done by me under the constant
supervision & painstakingly guidance of Dr. Jaswant Saini and to the best of my knowledge,
contain no violation of any existing copyright or any third-party rights over the contents of
the Project Report, in part or whole.
I state that due permission has been obtained to use any excerpts or sources not in the public
domain or that the same is allowed as fair use under Indian copyright law. I also declare that
appropriate acknowledgement has been provided for any such referenced material in the
thesis, whether copyrighted or in the public domain.

Jasbir Singh
Research Scholar
Department of Law
M.D.U. Rohtak – 124001
Reg. No. 1818240208
Supervisor

Dr. Jaswant Saini

Associate Professor
Faculty of Law
M.D. University, Rohtak

Countersigned by

Prof. (Dr.) Kavita Dhull

Head & Dean
Faculty of Law
M.D. University, Rohtak

3
 DEDICATED TO

My beloved wife Ms. Narinder Kaur,

who have been the constant source of
inspiration to me. Her unyielding love,
support and encouragement has put
extreme confidence in me to trasp all
the intricacies of the procedure to
complete this thesis, whose love,
affection, encouragement and
cooperation helped and inspired me to

work further hard in the field of interest.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

While writing these acknowledgments, I am at a loss of appropriate words to record

the sincerity of all those who have extended to me their valuable suggestions, help and
cooperation in every possible way to complete this work. This small gratitude is merely a
fraction of what I have received.
At the outset, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my guide Dr. Jaswant
Saini, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, under
whose learned and sagacious guidance the present research work has been completed.
In fact, it is a matter of privilege and pride to have worked with Dr. Jaswant Saini and
draw upon his rich experience, expertise and scholarly advice.
I also express my sincere thanks to Dr. Vedpal Deswal (since deceased), Associate
Professor, Faculty of Law, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, for helping me out in
every possible aspect during my research work. Without his thoughtful encouragement and
constructive recommendations, it would have been too troublesome for me to ameliorate my
research work. I feel deeply indebted to him for the tireless efforts he put in for polishing and
enriching this work. He always remained very kind to make himself available in the most
humane, considerate, patient and co-operative manner despite his busy schedule and extended
all the possible help. It may be relevant to mention here that without his thoughtful,
constructive and useful suggestions, it would not have been possible to give such a shape to
the present research work.
I owe special thanks to my wife, Mrs. Narinder Kaur, Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, whose blessings, love, affection, encouragement and cooperation has helped me to
complete this immense task.
I sincerely acknowledge the help and assistance that I have received from the staff
members of different libraries of Department of Law, and Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak.
I record my deep sense of gratitude to all my well-wishers, who have helped me
directly and indirectly in the completion of this work.
THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO HELPED ME.
Jasbir Singh
Research Scholar

5
 PREFACE

Examining the scope of invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, in a case, the

Supreme Court observed that while it is true that Article 21 has not been incorporated
in the Constitution to safeguard the offenders, provided however that, there is due
sanction of law in the matter of having the petitioners in the custody. 1
Bail or jail? That's the question. Every citizen is presumed to be law-abiding
and innocent. But when the court speaks of presumption of innocence of the accused,
it only means to stress that the burden of proving guilt lies entirely on the prosecution
and that strict proof must be given for holding that the accused is guilty. This is based
on the principle that every citizen is entitled to live in liberty till he commits an
offence; and nobody, including the state, should take away his liberty without
establishing before a court of law that he had committed the offence and thus rendered
himself disqualified for enjoying the liberties of a free citizen.2
For the purpose of granting bail, offences have been classified into Bailable
and non-bailable offences under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The basic
distinction in these offences is that in bailable offences, bail can be claimed as a
matter of right, whereas in non-bailable offences, it is at the discretion of the Courts
whether to grant bail or not. While granting bail in case of non-bailable offences
various factors are to be taken into account by the Courts. Today the horizon of
Human Rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing.
Observing this, Supreme Court has been held that there is urgent need to make a
balance between personal liberty and investigational powers of Police. There can be
no gain saying that freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the state.
However, no right can be absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.
It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider other
circumstances also. The following factors are also considered by the Courts:

1 Narinder Singh Sahni v. Union of India. AlR 2001 SC 3810 at p. 3814 (2002)2 SCC 210.

2 Bhola v. State. 1974 Cri LJ 1318 at p. 1319 (AlI)

6
 (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tempering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complaint.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
When any person, accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-
bailable offence, applies for bail before a Court other than High Court or a Court of
Session in one of the four circumstances, viz.
i. When he is arrested; or
ii. When he is detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station;
or
iii. When he appears; or
iv. When he is brought before a Court of jurisdiction?
The Magistrate may release him on bail but he shall not be so released if there
appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence
punishable with imprisonment for life or capital sentence.
Courts should be empowered to impose reasonable conditions but these may
not be statutorily listed. However, it can be provided that the conditions must have a
bearing to the object and purpose of bail, viz. ensuring the presence of the accused on
the appointed day and that he/she does not obstruct the course of justice. A number of
court decisions have already crystalized the factors which are relevant to assess the
risks involved in releasing arrested person on bail. These factors together with other
necessary ones may be catalogued to set up discernible criteria for use by the courts
while exercising their discretion.
The existing law on sureties is rather unsatisfactory. It is a policy issue to
decide if the law on the subject is to be inter-woven around any community-based
organisation like the Manhattan Bail Project. In any case, the law relating to sureties,
must take into account the capacity, integrity and the proximity of the surety (in
relation to kinship, place of residence or work etc.) as well as his suitability in terms
of moral worthiness. In case of individual sureties, a procedure for verification of the
antecedents, capacity and their suitability shall have to be provided for. This can be a

7
check on the growth of a clandestine channel of professional sureties. The financial
capacity of the person to stand as surety need not be given a place of primacy.
However, a surety should be under a duty to ensure attendance of the accused at the
appointed time and place. On breach of a condition already agreed to by a surety, the
accountability should be in terms of imposing a monetary fine on him.
The judges have been given discretionary power to grant or not to grant bail.
The exercise of this power is generally based upon the precedents. But unfettered
powers given to the judges is generally misused and subject to great criticism. It has
been seen that bails granted by the lower courts are cancelled by the higher courts.
There must be definite criteria in this regard.
There is no statutory limit fixed on the amount of bail bond or number of
sureties. The entire matter has been left to the discretion of the courts. Many persons
have to remain in jail for want of furnishing bail bonds. The statutory provisions may
be made for each category of cases.
The law and practice relating to remand, police bail, successive bail
applications on refusal of bail, detention/release of juvenile, women, sick and old
persons as well as lot of related matters would necessarily call for discussion, debate
and reformulation of the rules. The task is extensive. It is also vital for utilitarian and
civilized functioning of the administration of criminal justice. In sum, the
reformulation of bail law is not a mere revision of the law. It is a prelude to any
commitment to reform the administration of criminal justice. This study has shown
that the law of bails contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure remains clouded in
sundry legislative provisions as well as in a plethora of judicial precedents. Obscurity
pervades both. The net result is that the law lacks cogency in its understanding and
application. Without having a properly organised base of rules through the use of
doctrines and principles, the aberrations in the law of bails would continue.
Accordingly, the reform calls for garnering total efforts. Concerned agencies of state
and the government cannot ignore it for long; but prior to the undertaking of any
reform, it is essential that the job of systematization and analysis is completed. These
are necessary prerequisites for any effort to draft a code. Therefore, an intense debate

8
has to precede before the new law is codified with advantage even at the cost of
impairing the ‘rule of law’ as presently assured by the existing law.

9
 ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Meaning
AIR All India Reporter
AIR(SC) All India Reporter (Supreme Court)
CJI Chief Justice of India
ICJ International Court of Justice
CPC Civil Procedure Code
APP Assistant Public Prosecutor
DM District Magistrate
ADM Additional District Magistrate
AG Attorney General
IPC Indian Penal Code
CMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
CC Certified Copy
CS Court of Sessions
DB Division Branch
FB Full Branch
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PW Prosecution Witness
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Tr.P Transfer Petition
ECC/ECR Excise and Custom Cases/Reports
AS First Appeal
SA Second Appeal
WA Writ Appeal
OSA Original Side Appeal
STA Special Tribunal Appeal
CMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
CMSA Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal
LPA Letters Patent Appeared
STP Special Tribunal Petition
CONT.A. Contempt Appeal
CROSS.OBJ. Cross Objection
T.M.A. Trade Marks Appeal
T.M.S.A. Trade Marks Second Appeal
T.C. Text Cases
T.C.A. Tax Case Appeal
T.C.R. Text Case Revision
C.R.P Civil Revision Petition
H.C.P. Habeas Corpus Petition
CRL.A. Criminal Appeal
CRL.R.C. Criminal Revision Case
R.T. Referred Trial
CRL.O.P. Criminal Original Petition
R.C. Reference Case
W.P. Writ Petition
REV.APPL. Review Application
C.S. Civil Suit

10
 LIST OF CASES

A.K. Murumu v. Prasenjit Choudury 1999 Cr.LJ 3460 (3468) (Cal-DB).

A.K. Prasad v. State of Karnataka. 1982 Cri LJ 542 at p. 548 (Kant).
A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
A.K.Roy v. Union of India AIR SC 710.
Abdul Habib v. State 1974 CR.LJ 278.
Abraham Bali v. Emperor. AIR 1925 Oudh 489; 26 Cr.LJ 1286: Fazal Nawaz Jung
Ahamed Basheer and another v. Sub Inspector of Police 2014 Crl.LJ. 137(Ker.)
Ajay Kumar Verma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 633
Ajeet Singh v. State of U.P. 2007 Crl.J.170 (All.)
Ajit Kumar v. State of Assam 1976 Cri LJ 1303(Gau Hc)
Ananth Kumar v. State of A.P. 1977 Cr. LJ 1797 (AP)
Arjun Singh v.State of Rajathanm 1987 Cr.L.J.1236(DB) Rajasthan High Court.
Arnesh Kumarv. State of Bihar 2014 SC 2756.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2020
Ashok Kumar Binny v. State 1983 Cr.L.J.727
Ashok Kumar v. State, 1992 Cri LJ 3821 at p. 3822 (Del).
Ashok v. State, 1967 Cr.L.J. 1750.
Assistant Director D and E v. Nathmal Bajaj, AIR 1997 AP at 933
Babu Ali v. State, 1981 A.L.J. 103 Allahabad High Court.
Baghirath Ghusai Patel Matha v. State of M. P. 1980 MPLJ 373 at 375.
Bahan v. State of Kerala, 2004 Cr.LJ 3427 (3431) (Ker-DB)
Balasahab Sadanand Bhagatv.State of Maharashtra, 2015 Crl. J (NOC) 470(Bom).
Balchand Jain v. State of MP AIR 1977 SC 366 at p.374.
Balmukand v. State (1983) 2 Crimes 708 at 709 (Raj.); D. Danda @ Dandapani v. State
of Orissa (1984) 57 Cut. LT 394 al 397.
Batana Dass V.State of H.P./19809 Cr.L.J. 748 Himachal Pradesh High Court
Batna Ram v.State of H.P.1980 Cr.L.J.745 Himachal Pradesh High Court(D.B.)
Bhagirath Singh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372.
Bhim Singhv.State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494.
Bhola v. State, 1974 Cri LJ 1318 at p. 1319 (All).
Bhole v.State of U.P. 1983 All.Cr.R.17 Allahabad High Court.

11
C. Satya Narayana's case (supra) and Delhi Administration v. Dharam Pal, 1982, Cr.L.J.
1103 Delhi High Court (D.B.)
C. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. AIR 1986 S.C. 2130.
C. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1986 S.C. 2130.
C.M. Nandan V. State of Kerala, 1980 Cr.L.J. 1195 (Kerala High Court).
C.Satya Narain v.State of A.P. AIR 1966 S.C.2130
C.Satyanarayan V. State of A.P.AIR 1966 S.C.2130
CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR 1992 SC 1768.
Chandrawati v. State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ 3634 at p. 3635(All).
Charun Khannav.Union of India AIR 2015 SC 839.
Common Cause Laws v.Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1619.
D.N.Goswami v. State of W.B. AIR 1973 SC 757.
Dara Gaddi v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 564
Delip Shankar Koli v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 CriLJ 500 at p. 503.
Devji Vallabhbhai v. Administrator, Goa, Daman and Diu AIR 1982 SC 1029.
Din Dayal v. Emperor, AIR 1920 Pat 516.
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan AIR 1994 SC 1775
Durei Behra v. Suratha Behra, 1987 Cr.L.J.1462
Eshaq v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 All 782.
Experor v. Ranbir Singh AIR 1931
Foja Singh v. State. 2004 Cri LJ 4375 at p. 4377 (J & K).
Gama v. State of U.P. 1987Cr.L.J.242
Ganpati K. Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
Ganpati v. State of Mysore, 1972 Cri LJ 417 at p. 418 (Mysore).
Gharban Ali v. Intelligence Officer, AIR Intelligence Unit, NIPT, 1996 Cri UJ 2420 at p.
2422 (Bom).
Giani Meher Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1959 Cal.714
Gokul Das v. State of Assam, 1981 Cri LJ 229 at p. 232 (Gau).
Gopi v. State 1984 Lucknow Law Journal 221.
Gudikanti Narasimhlu v. Public Prosecutor, AP, AIR 1978:SC 429: 1978 Cr.LJ 502;
Gurcharan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978. SC 179: 1978 Cr.LJ 129
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor. High Court of A.P., AIR1978.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC(Cr.)465
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1987 SC 179

12
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1987 SC 179
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1987 SC 179
Gurcharan Singh v. State, AIR 1978 SC 179
Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 13 SCC 286 at p. 286.
Gyan Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr.L.J.1176
H.C. Gaur v. Rakesh Vij (1990) 40 Del. LT 346; 1990 Cr.LJ 1586 (Del)
Harbans Signh v. State of Punjab, (1986) 15 Cr. LT 264: (1987-1) 91 PLR 103; Hari
Mohan Dixit v. State of M.P. 1986 Cr.LR211 (MP)
Hariharanand v. Jailor, Varanasi AIR 1954 Allahabad 601 and Bir Bhadra Pratap Singh v.
D.M. Azamgarh AIR 1959 Allahabad 384.
Harikishan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 911
Harikishanv. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911,914: 1962 (1) Cri LJ 797
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Sec, State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360”
Hussainara Khatoonv.Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360.
Imamuddin v. Ayub Khan, 1984 Cri LJ 117 at p. 121 (Raj).
In re. Sasti Charan Mondal, 1974 Cr.LJ 1526 (Cal-DB); Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen
Yadav, 2003 (1) Crimes 132 (135) (SC).
Income Tax Officer v. Gopal Dhamani, 1988 Cr.L.J. p.18
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1978 Cri. LJ 759 at p.760 (P&H)
Jagram v. Ghamandi (1980) 5 Raj. C.C.364; Vijaya Kumar v. State of Haryana. 1981
Cr.LJ 838 (PH): 1981 Cr.LT 110 (P&H).
Jai singh V.State of Haryana 1980 Crl.L.J.1229(DB) P&H High Court
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994, SC 1349
K. Narayanaswamy v. State of A.P., 1980 Cri LJ 588 at p. 591 (AP).
Kali Das v. S.H.O. Police Station Resi, 1979 Cri LJ 345 at p. 350 (J & K).
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004)7 SCC 528
Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P.Cr.L.J 512(MP)
Kasanapu Ramreddy v. State of A.P. and others AIR 1994 SC 1447
Kashmir Singh V. State of Punjab 1984 Cr.L.J. 51 P&H (D.B.)
Kedar v. State, 1977 Cr.L.J. 1230, Allahabad High Court.
Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, 1981 SCC (Cri) 288
Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928.
Khudiram Das v State of W.B.AIR 1975 SC 550.

13
 Kimat Rai v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lah. 215.
King Emperor vs.Basappa, 4 Bom, LR 55; see also Diwan Chand Vs. King Emperor, 15
PR 1908.
Kirpa Shanker v. State of U.P., 1984 All. Cr. R.114 at 115: 1984 UP Cr.R. 7 (1)
Kishori Lal v. Rupa. 65CC 638 at p. 639:2004 Cri LJ 3840
L.Ram Narain Singh v. A.Sen. AIR 1958 ALL 758.
Lakhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 R.L.W.610
Lakhan Singh v.State of Rajathan 1988 Cr. L.J.(NOC) 64 Rajasthan High Court.
M.P. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, 1991 Cri LJ 1298 at p. 1311 (Kant).
M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.
Madurai Ganesan v. State of T.N. 2004 Cri LJ 2736 at p. 2739(Mad).
Mainka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 S.C. 27
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 65 AIR 1978 SC 571
Manloor Khan v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr.LJ 5006: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1541: (1998) 8 SCC
368
Manoj v. State of M.P,( 1999) 3 SCC (Cri) 478: 1999 Cri LJ 2095 (SC)
Mansab Ali v. Irsan, (2003) 1 SCC 632 at p. 633 : AIR 2003 SC 707 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
399.
Mansab Ali v. Irsan, AIR 2003 SC 707
Mantu Mazuedar v. Sate of Bihar AIR 1986 S.C. 847.
Markandey v. State 1976 ALJ 88 Allahabad High Court (D.B.)
Mathew Zacharish v. State of Kerala. 1974 Cr.LJ 1198 (Ker-DB)
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332”
Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of
2022
Moti Ram and Ors. v. State of M.P AIR 1978 SC 1594
Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (10979)1 SCR 335.
Muhammed Rafi v. Satheesh Kumar Con.Case(C) No. 808 of 2022
Muhammed Rafi v. Satheesh Kumar Con.Case No. 808 of 2022
Munna v. State of M.P. 1990 Cr. LR (MP) 12: 1987 CrLR (Raj) 476
Mushtaque Ahmed v. State of U.P (1984) 1 Crimes 70 (All.)
Mutum Chooba Singh v. State of Manipur (1985) I GLR 286
N.Sureya Reddy V.State of Orissa 1985 Cr.L.J, 939 Orissa High Court(DB)

14
Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration AIR 1964 Manipur 59.
Nagendra Nath v. King-Emperor. AIR 1924 Cal 476: Emperor v. Gulam Mohammad,
AIR 1925 Lah. 510: Ram Chandra v. State, AIR 1952 MB 203: 1953 Cr.LJ 17
Narain Pasi v. State of U.P.1980 Cr.L.J. 2552 Allahabad DB
Narinderjit Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3810 at p. 3827.
Natabar Pariada v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 S.C. 1465
Nathu v. State of U. P. 1987 All LJ 1211: 1987 All Cr. Cas. 344, 1987 AWC 988
Nattunasu v. State. 1998 Cr. L.J. 1762 (Mad).
Ngangom Thoton Singh v. Union Territory of Manipur. 1969 Cri LJ 128 at p. 129
(Manipur).
Ngangom Thoton Singh v. Union Territory of Manipur. 1969 Cri LJ 128 at p. 129
(Manipur).
Nilu v. State. 1983 Cr. LJ 1590 (Ori): (1983) 55 Cut LT 123.
Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram. AIR 1980 SC 785; 1980 Cr.LJ 426: Phool Chand
v. State of Rajasthan. 1983 Raj. Cr. Cas. 190: 1983 Raj. L.W.294: 1983 Cr.LR (Raj)
336: Ram Kishan Misra v. State of U.P., 1986 AII. LR. 607: 1986 All Cr. R. 8: 1986 All.
Cr.C.29
Noor Salman Makani v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 575.
P.C. Kakar v. D.C. Police, 1965 (1) Crimes 620.
P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala. (2005) 13 SCC 283 at p. 285.
Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra. (2005) 3 SCC 143 at pp.
Phillipa Anne Duke v. State of Tamil Nadu AIE 1982 SC. 1178.
Police Commissioner, Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, AIR 1997 SC 95.
Powell Nwana Ogechi v. Delhi Administration 1986(3) Crimes 577
Powell Nwana Ogechi v. Delhi Administration 1986(3) Crimes 577
Prafulla Kumar Pradhan v. Pabaneswar Subudhi, 1989 Cril LJ 2016 at p. 2017(Ori).
Pralhad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T.Delhi AIR 2001 S.C.144.
Prem Shanker Shuklav. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 535: See also Altemesh
Reinv.Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1768, Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam,
AIR 1996 SC 2193, Shobraryv.Superintendent Central Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1514 andT.
Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 367.
Public Prosecutor v. M. Sanyasayya Naidu. AIR 1925 Mad. 1224; Rao Harnarain Singh
Sheoji Singh v. State. AIR 1958 Punj. 123
Purshottam Govindji Halai V. B.M.Desai, AIR 1956, SC 20

15
Queen Vs. Thakur Prashad, ILR 1 All 151(FB). Queen Vs. Kanta Sahu 23 WR 40
Rajesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan. 1986 R.L.W.667 (Raj.)
Rajnikant v. State of Orissa 1975 Cr.L.J. 83.
Ram Chandra alias Munal v. Superintendent Central Jail, Naini, 1982 L.L.J. 160, Subhash
Bhandarl v. State of U.P.. 1986 A.C.C. 520 and Ramakant v. State, 1988 Selected
Criminal Reports 172.
Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. 1977 Cr.LJ 1783.
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475 at p. 1477: (2002)3 SCC
598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688.
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475 at p. 1478
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475 at p. 1478
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475 at p. 1476
Ram Kumar Tyagi v. State 1994(3) Crimes 1037
Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi AIR 1953 SC 277
Ram Naresh Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 CriL).
Ram Preet Singh v. State of U.P (1990) 1 Crimes 531 (All).
Ram Sahodar v.State of M.P.1966 Cr.L.J.279 M.P.
Ramdoss v. State of T.N..1993 Cri LJ 2147 at p. 2158(Mad).
Ramesh Kumar Ravi v. State of Bihar 1987 Cr.L.J.1489
Ramesh Kumar v. State of H.P..1984 Cri LJ 1056 at p. 1056 at p. 1059(HP).
Rasik Lal v. Kishore Khanehand Wadwani AIR 2009 SC 1341
Rini Joharv.State of M.P. AIE 2016 SC 2679.
Romesh Chandra v. State of H.P., 2002 Cri LJ 1031 at pp. 1032-33 (HP).
S.K. Dey v. Officer Incharge Sakchi AIR 1974 S.C. 871.
Sahadeviah v. N.Srinivas Chari, 2003 AP ILD 8.
Sajjan Kumar v. State. 1991 Cri LJ 645 at p. 653 (Del)
Salim Khan v. Sanhjai Singh. (2002)9 SCC 670 at p. 671.
Sangappa v. State of Karnataka, 1978 Cri LJ 1367 at pp. 1970-71 (Kant).
Sant Ram v. State. AIR 1952 J&K 28.1952 Cr.LJ 1223: State v. Surinder Singh Kairon
(1966) 68 Ounj. LR (Delhi) 46: 1966 Cr.LJ 863
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of M.P, AIR 2014 SC 2745.
Saraswathi Seshagiriv. State of Kerala AIR 1982 SC 1165
Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2007 Cri LJ 2766 at p. 2768 : (2007)11 SCC 195:
(2007)56 AIC 202 (SC).

16
 Sayad Pir Mohi-ud-din Lal Badshah v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Lah 762 at 763; Indar Das v.
State. AIR 1951 HP 31. Mathew Zacharia v. State of Kerala, 1974 Ker. LT 42
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (SC)2022
Selviv.State of Karnataka AIE 2020 SC 1974
Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1984
Shaik Layak v.State, 1981 CriLJ 954 at p.957
Shalini Rawat v. State 1998 Cr. LJ 1815 at pp. 1817-18 (Del)
Sharifbai v. Abdul Razak, AIR 1961 Bom 42
Shashi Kumar Gupta v.State of Haryana, 1995(4) Crimes 759
Sheel Barse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378.
Shivarame Gowda v. State of Karnataka. 1991 Cr.LJ 1008, 1016 (Kant.)
Shivasubramonham v. State of Kerala. AIR 2002 Kant HCR 1069:2002 Cr.LJ 1998
(2002) (Kant)
Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021
State of Bihar v. Rai Naresh AIR 1957 S.C. 589.
State of Haryana v. Hasmat. (2004)6 SCC 175 at p. 177.
State of Haryana v. Hasmat. (2004)6 SCC 175 at p. 177.
State of J&K v.Abdul Rashid 1988 Cr.L.J.584
State of M.P. v. Shobha Ram, AIR 1996 SC 1910.
State of M.P.v.Narayan Prasad, AIR 1963, M.P.276
State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao. AIR 1989 SC 2292: Arvind Kumar
Jasram Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat (1990) I Guj LR 623
State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 at p. 2295.
State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Papat Vetal. (2004)7 SCC521.
State of Maharasthra v. Shared B.Sarda. 1983(2) Cr.Law Cases 18
State of Orissa v. Md. Abdul Karim, 1984 Cri LJ
State of Orissa v. Md. Abdul Karim, 1984 Cri LJ 905 at p. 907 (ori) (1984) 57 Cut LT
281.
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447
State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwari Khan 1975 Cr.L.J.1981(Rajasthan High Court)
State of U.P. v. Abul Samad AIR 1962 S.C. 1506.
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav 1985(1) S.C.C. 552.
State of U.P.V.Sheo Raj Singh 1984 A.Cr.R.39 Allahabad High Court.
State of W.B. v. Subodth Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92.

17
State through Delhi Administration v. Late Sanjay Gandhi. 1978 Cr.LJ 952 at 958; AIR
1978 SC 961
State Trading Corportionv.Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963(SC) 1811: See also B.C.I.
v. High Court of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227
State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh. AIR 1962 SC 253 at p. 255: (1962) Cri LJ 215 (1962).
State v. Veerapandy. 1979 Cr.L.J. 455 at 458 (Mad)
State V.Sukh Singh AIR 1954 Rajasthan 290
Sudhindra Kumar Singh v. District and Sessions Judge. Allahabad, 1998 Cri LJ 1042 at
Pp. 1044-45 (All).
Suk Dassv. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991. See also
M.H.Hoskot v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 and State of Maharashtra v. M.P
Washi, AIR 1996 SC paragraph 16.
Sukar Narayan Bakhia v. Rajnikant R. Shah, 1982 Cri LJ 2148 at p. 2155 (Guj).
Sundar Singhv.Emperor, 32 Cri LJ 339
Surendra Kumar v. State of MP, 1995 Cri LJ 1517 at p. 1519.
Surendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 Cri LJ 988 at p. 990 (Chhattis).
Tarapada Dev. State of W.B, AIR 1951 SC 174: 52 Cri LJ 400.
Thakur Hariprasad v. State of A.P., 1976 An. LT.445.
Udayabhan Shuki v. State of U.P. 1999 Cri. LJ 274 (ALL HC)
Usha Devi v. . 2006 Cri LJ 4435 at p. 4439 (Pat).
Usman v. Sub Inspector of Police (2003) 2 Ker LT 594; 2003 Cr.LJ 3928 (3935) (Ker)
Vasant Vinayak Bhagwat v. State, AIR 1951 M.B. 104, 105 :52 Cr.L.J 567.
Veenav.State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339.
Velu Vishwanathan v. State 1971 Cr. LJ 725.
Velu Vishwanathan V. State 1971 Cr.L.J. 725 Kerala High Court DB
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
Yaman v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 134.
Yunus Hussain Rathod v. Asst. Collector of Customs (1990) 1Bom C.R.449

18