Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Bharat Bhushan Pareek & Ors on 9 September, 2011

State vs Bharat Bhushan on 31 March, 2015

6. So far as the evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, as per testimony of PW­1 Vidhya Bhushan, on 21.08.2000 at about 7:20 am he was going to drop his sons namely Vibhore and Vishesh at their school. The accused (correctly identified by the witness) that day came from the wrong side while driving Indica car No. HR 05 G 7796 at Main Road, Opposite Service Road, in front of Kohat Enclave, which was wrong side. The accused was driving his car at the very high speed of about 60/70 kmph and hit his (complainant's) son Vibhore at his left leg, who fell on the bonet of the car and hit his jaw on the bonet and due to this accident, he was thrown at a distance of 10 feet away by the impact. He immediately became unconscious. He regained consciousness partial. He took his son with the help of 2/3 passersby to the Fir No. 588/00 State Vs. Bharat Bhushan page 3 Gautam Hospita where he was told that the left leg of the injured would have to be imputated, and thereafter, he took his son to Aggarsain Hospital. The accused stopped his car after hitting his son. He noted down the number of his car. The accused also accompanied them to Aggarsain Hospital, but from there, the accused went away and never came back, again said he accompanied us till Gautam Hospital and thereafter on hearing that the leg of the injured had to be imputated, he being afraid of that went away from there and never came back. Police prepared the site plan on his instance, which is Mark A. The accused who hit his son by his car was present in the court that day.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Bharat Bhushan on 7 September, 2019

After 2­3 days accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. I had told the police the place where accident had taken place. I had identified dead body of my father vide identification memo Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point A. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused as we were going aside the road and accused was driving the scooter in high speed and hit my father from behind and even after hitting fled away from the spot. I can identify the case property i.e. above said scooter, if shown to me. However, identity of the same is not disputed by the accused". This witness was cross­examined by the FIR No. 256/04 State Vs. Bharat Bhushan Page no. 3 of 14 accused in detail.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Bharat Bhushan on 16 September, 2014

15. PW-5 SI Sanjeev Sharma being IO was examined on 13.08.2014 and deposed that on 01.11.2001 he was posted as SI at PS Maliviya Nagar and on that day at about 4.30 PM while he was present in DO room, one person Anup Jathwani reached at PS alongwith another person Bharat Bhusan present in the court. He further deposed that he had recorded complaint/statement of Anup Jathwani, the said complaint was already Ex. PW2/A bearing his attestation at point B. He further deposed that he handed over the rukka to DO for registration of case and he alongwith Ct. Yash Pal, complainant and accused Bharat Bushan proceeded FIR No. 866/01 State Vs Bharat Bhusan & Ors. Pages 6/9 towards place of occurrence i.e. D-83 Malviya Nagar. He further deposed that he had inspected the site and prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant the said site plan is Ex. As PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He had seized the car bearing the registration no. DL. 3CN-6358 which is already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point B and thereafter, he had seized two recharge coupons airtel and sealed the with the seal of SKS vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he had interrogated the accused and arrested him in the present case and conducted his personal search vide arrest memo and personal search memo already Ex. PW2/E and PW2/F bearing his signature at point C respectively. He further deposed that he had also recorded disclosure statement of accused already Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point B and recorded statement of all witnesses and he came back to PS and case property as per seizure memo has been deposited to MHC(M). He further deposed that he had got conducted the medical examination of accused and on next day he had produced the accused before Hon'ble Court and on 13.12.2001 he had arrested accused Rajesh Chauhan and conducted his possible search vide arrest memo and personal search memo already Ex. PW2/G and PW2/H bearing his signature at point C respectively. He further deposed that he had seized credit cards which was founds in possession of accused Rajesh chuahan vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point C and prepared the charge sheet and produced before Hon'ble Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Bhushan Sharma & vs State Of J&K & Ors on 29 March, 2021

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 116/2016 alongwith criminal challans No. 4 CRMC No. 157/2017 103 titled State vs. Bharat Bhushan & ors. under Section 498-A RPC pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, are quashed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Bharat Bhushan Patel And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 8 July, 2021

This application is disposed off with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Allahabad to decide the S.T. No.216 of 2016 (State vs. Bharat Bhushan Patel and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2012, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 341 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Sorao, District Allahabad, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order on its own merits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Suman vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 January, 2023

The prayer in the present petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the transfer of the proceedings arising out of case FIR No.181 dated 29.11.2020 under Sections 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 427, 509 IPC registered at Police Station Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) titled as "State versus Bharat Bhushan" pending, in the Court of Dr. Sushil Bodh, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rupnagar to any other competent Court of jurisdiction outside District Rupnagar or at District Courts, SAS Nagar Mohali or at any other appropriate Forum.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next