Search Options

Judgment Search By Title

Displaying 701-720 of 8375 results.
Sabita Dutta Vs. Manager, Cinema Palace Chittagong and another, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Azizul Hoque (Md) Vs. State, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


SM Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) and another, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Abu Taleb Vs. State, 1988, 17 CLC (HCD)


Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Hozizur Rahman and others Vs. Abu Bakar Chowdhury and others, 2011, 40 CLC (AD)


Abdul Mutalib Vs. Md Mostakim Ali and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Shamsunnahar Salam and others Vs. Mohammad Wahidur Rahman and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Ashok Kumar Karmaker Vs. State, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Bashu Dev Chatterjee Vs. Umme Salma and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Golam Ahmed Vs. State, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)

The Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (Act No. VIII of 2000); section 9 (1)

The victim as a grownup woman lived together with the appellant for six years as husband and wife. She was a consenting partner of the appellant. She was fully aware of Muslim marriage. She willingly surrendered herself to the carnal desire of the accused. After living together as husband and wife for six years the vic­tim moved the court of law with the allegation that the accused was practicing fraud upon her, obtained her consent to have sexual intercourse and they lived together as husband and wife. Such manner of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is preposterous and suffers from infirmity and improbability. The consent of the victim was not obtained practicing fraud. Sexual intercourse was not an act of one day, but for six years. Such act do not constitute an offence of rape punishable under section 9(1) of the Ain………………………………………(9)  


Abdul Latif Howlader and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)


State Vs. Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Section 498

Anticipatory Bail

Per A.T.M. Afzal: Generally speaking the main circumstance as would entitle an order for extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail is the perception of the Court upon the facts and materials disclosed by the petitioner before it that the criminal proceeding which is being or has been launched against him is being or has been taken with an ulterior motive, political or otherwise, for harassing the accused and not for securing justice, in a particular case. The only other case where the prayer may also be considered may occur if it is proved that on account of some local public commotion or other circumstances it is not possible for the petitioner to appear before the lower Court for seeking bail. The petitioner must, however, remain physically present in Court before his application for bail can be entertained. The Court, if it grants anticipatory bail, must expressly make it a condition that if the petitioner commits any breach of the terms of bail, the Court concerned will be at liberty to cancel his bail and take him into custody………………………….(21)

Per Latifur Rahman J (agreeing): Granting of anticipatory bail in an exceptional circumstance is a matter to be decided by the learned Judges on the facts of a particular case and it is really difficult to confine anticipatory bail within these three categories only. The special and exceptional circumstances are to be left to the discretion of the learned Judges…………(44)

Per Latifur Rahman J (agreeing):

Prayer for anticipatory bail may be made before the High Court Division or Court of Sessions at the option of the petitioner. ………………………(46)  


Abdul Kader Mondal & ors Vs. Shamsur Rahman Chowdhury alias Shamsur Rahman Saha, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Red Sun Limited & Others Vs. Uttara Bank, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Salma Khatun and others Vs. Zilla Parishad, Chittagong, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Phoenix Leasing Ltd and others Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


City Bank Limited and others Vs. Bangladesh Bank and others, 1999, 28 CLC (AD)


Star Alkaid Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. EPIWTA and others, 1972, 1 CLC (HCD)


Pak Waterways Vs. EPIWTA and others, 1972, 1 CLC (HCD)