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

HARSH SAWHNEY versus UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)

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

Citations

Official
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 129 · 1978 INSC 39
Also cited as
  • (1978) 2 SCC 365 (7 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1978 SC 1016 (2 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.

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.

KRISHNA J.-We have heard counsel on both sides. We are satisfied that this is a case where on the facts now placed before us bail should be grante( The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.)I. On the basis of that decision this is clearly a case where the appellanf is entitled to bail. Two grounds have bee~ mentioned on beha_lf of the Stute, namely, the appellant's presence 1s necessary for ma~mg a search and recovery of certain docum~nts. We not t~mk that the appellant has to be tak.en mto custody tor makmg a search of premises in her presen~e. This can be done without her being taken into custody. The other (1) [l 782] S.C.R.358. ground that is put forward is the appelfant's presence is required by the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogatioii by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

pp. 129–130, margin F

We allow the appeal and direct the appellant to be enlarged on bail on condition that she, with two sureties, will enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and she will subject herself to condition for appearing before the Police for interrogation if called upon to do so subject to the condition under Article 20(3). The bond of the appellant and of the sureties will be to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Mai;istrate, Delhi. This bail order will govern the case registered as Cnme F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977 in Police Station (West). district Chandigarh and any offence arising out of it.

p. 130, margin A

We further direc.t that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. S.R. Appeal a/lowed.

p. 130, margin C