Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2016

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2020

vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] rks og vius Loa; ds O;; ij ;g djus ds fy;s Lora= gksxkA HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C.No.38244/2020 (Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.) bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ ;g funsZ'k vkosnd ds }kjk Lor% O;Dr dh xbZ lkeqnkf;d lsok dh bPNk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gS tks LoSfPNd gSA E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2019

It is the duty of the trial Court to monitor the progress of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any casualness shown by the applicant regarding compliance. Therefore, trial Court is directed to submit a report regarding progress of the trees and the compliance made by the applicant by placing a short report before this Court every quarterly (every three months), which HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.37741/2019 (Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.) shall be placed under the caption "Direction" before this Court. Any default shall disentitle the applicant from benefit of bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2021

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-27383-2021 (Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.) Charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, further custodial interrogation is not required. It is also submitted that on perusal of 161 statements of Vinay Singh Rajput and Bhawar Singh alias Rinku Rajput, it can be seen that the present applicant did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The change circumstances in the present case are that the co-accused- Ramdulari has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15/01/2021 passed in MCRC No.52579/2020 on similar grounds. The only allegation against the present applicant as per the statement is that he insulted the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of COVID-19, outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is a permanent resident of District- Vidisha (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, prayer for grant of bail is made.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2018

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. There was a free fight has taken place between both the parties, in which 10 persons of the applicants side has also sustained injuries and on the basis of report lodged by Hajarilal a cross case bearing Crime No. 3/2018 was registered against the complainant party at Police-Station-Bhojpur for the offence under Sections 147,148,149, 294, 307, 323, 324, 325,326 and 506 of the IPC. However, Prembai (wife of the complainant Gangaram) died in the incident, but there is no allegation against the present applicant that he has caused any injury to the deceased-Prembai. The only allegation against the applicant is that he gave a lathi blow on the leg of injured-Harisingh, due to which he sustained simple injuries. The applicant is in custody since 01/01/2018. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.17390/2018 (Rambabu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) applicant is the permanent resident of Rajgarh (Bioara) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tempering with the evidence. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2019

In the instant case, the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree as is evident from his THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCC-2768-2019 (RAMBABU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own affidavit. Even though the appellant appears not to be as vigilant as he ought to have been, yet his conduct does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. He should have been more vigilant but his failure to adopt such extra vigilance should not have been made a ground for ousting him from the litigation with respect to the property, concededly to be valuable. While deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the court should have kept in mind the judgment impugned, the extent of the property involved and the stake of the parties. We are of the opinion that the inconvenience caused to the respondent for the delay on account of the appellant being absent from the court in this case can be compensated by awarding appropriate and exemplary costs. In the interests of justice and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, we set aside the order impugned and condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree. To avoid further delay, we have examined the merits of the main application and feel that sufficient grounds exists for setting aside the ex parte decree as well."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next