Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHAN SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Decided
20 February 1978
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JASWANT SINGH, R.S. PATHAK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 127 · 1978 INSC 38
Also cited as
  • AIR 1978 SC 1095 (6 citing judgments)
  • (1978) 2 SCC 366 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

'The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is one under Section 5 (2) of the Preven.tion of Corruption Act. Ba'! was granted by the SGssions Judge after hearing counsel ou both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions as well as iu the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings with the Court. The consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.

p. 127, margin E

Counsel for the State pressed before us tliat the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh & ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration)('). We do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until' further orders to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction. S.R. Appeal allowed.

pp. 127–128, margin G