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

MUKESH KISHANPURIA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided
3 May 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. PATNAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 702 · 2010 INSC 266
Also cited as
  • (2010) 15 SCC 154 (12 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2011 SCW 94 (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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

MUKESH KISHANPURIA v. STATE OF WEST 703 BENGAL

p. 703

Opinion 2

1

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

p. 703, margin A

2

This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta whereby the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been rejected.

p. 703, margin A

3

We have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also perused the record. We also see no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

p. 703, margin B

4

However, the petitioner may apply for regular bail before the Court concerned and alongwith the said application, he may file an application for interim bail pending disposal of the regular bail application. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of Dlndia. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent.

p. 703, margin C

5

Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final disposal of the regular bail application.

p. 703, margin E

6

We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order.

p. 703, margin F

7

The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms. R.P. Special Leave Petition disposed of.

p. 703, margin G