Heinousness of offence

Mere heinousness of offence is no ground for declining the relief of bail to an accused, who otherwise became entitled for the concession of bail.

Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to punish an accused.

Mere heinousness of the offence, if not proved to the hilt, is not sufficient to provide a valid basis for conviction of the accused.

Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because accused had presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Heinousness of offences is per se no ground for rejection of bail.

Mere heinousness of crime should not sway the court to deviate from the settled principles of criminal justice system.

Heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused as the accused continued with presumption of innocence until found guilty at the end of the trial.

Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continued to be innocent until found otherwise at the end of the decision of appeal.

Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continued to be innocent until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Mere heinous nature of offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because accused continued with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Court was to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused by dispassionately assessing the evidence and coming to a decision which is supported by the evidence on record and the governing law and not by emotions or own personal feelings

Court could only be guided by the evidence and the law and nothing else.

No one should be construed into a crime on the basis of presumption in absence of strong evidence of unimpeachable character and legally admissible one.

Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continued to be innocent until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Merely the offence being heinous in nature or falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(1) Cr.P.C. was not enough to withhold the concession of bail.

Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continued with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Mere heinous nature of offence was not sufficient to convict accused because accused continued with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at trial.

Balance needs to be struck between heinousness of offence and liberty of accused who cannot be detained indefinitely.

Mere heinous nature of offence was not sufficient to convict the accused.

Mere heinousness of offence was not sufficient to convict the accused for the accused continued with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Mere heinousness of crime would not disentitle the accused to the concession of bail.

Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise had become entitled to the concession of bail.

Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who had otherwise become entitled to the concession of bail.

Mere heinous nature of alleged offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused was presumed to be innocent until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Heinousness of offence or embezzlement of huge amount is not a good ground for refusal of bail on ground of non-conclusion of case within statutory period

Provision of S. 16(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 circumscribes a limit for conclusion of trial within 30 days from its commencement.

Mere heinous nature of offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused was presumed to be innocent until found otherwise at the trial.

Mere heinous nature of offence is not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continues with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial.

Mere heinousness of crime was no ground to convict an individual on the charge involving capital punishment.

Court for convicting the accused had to see the evidence which had been adduced by the prosecution, whether it was up to the mark and was of unimpeachable character.

Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to decline bail after arrest to an accused who was otherwise entitled for the concession of bail.

Bail of accused could not be withheld as a punishment merely on the ground that he was charged for a heinous offence, when otherwise he was found entitled for the same.

Mere heinousness of crime was no ground for refusal of bail if the case was one of further probe.

Mere heinousness of offence cannot be deemed to be a ground to debar accused for grant of bail, if case is covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

In such eventuality, accused is entitled to bail as a right and not by grace or concession.

Mere heinousness of offence could not be permitted to permeate and over-weigh the bail plea of accused.

Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail to an accused.