Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.53 seconds)

P. Venkoba vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2024

8. Following the order of the Division Bench of this Court in T. Ramadevi case as well as the observations made by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2024 as extracted above, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the docket order, dated 30.10.2024 in Cr.No.11/RCT-CIU-ACB/2024 passed by the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.
Telangana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anuj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2026

Ergo, for the twenty-four-hour mandate, as provided under Section 57 Cr.P.C./58 BNSS/Article 22(2) of the Constitution, it must be reckoned from the exact moment of physical deprivation of personal liberty, for any delay beyond this window, however, seemingly minute, constitutes a constitutional trespass that the law cannot and must not condone. As observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Ashak Hussain Allah Detha (supra) it and the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in T. Ramadevi (supra), the period of twenty-four hours is not to be computed from the official time of arrest as shown in the arrest memo but from the time, actual restraint was put upon the individual's volition to move.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1