Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (3.86 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Virendra Singh Sisodia vs Principal Secretary Of School Ed. on 30 June, 2014

Arun Pati Tripathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 September, 2024

Lastly, it is contended that the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (nearly three years in the ED case) by itself would not entitle the accused to be englarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail. The ED is investigating the offence committed by the application under the PMLA and ACB/EOW is investigating the offences of PC Act and IPC, as both the offences are separate and distinct from each other and jurisdiction of both the agencies are distinct and different therefore the period spent in jail for one offence cannot be counted for other offences and for the above reasons, the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular 27 / 33 bail ought to be rejected.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Kumar Arora vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 April, 2025

In the present case, the core of the ED's case against the Applicants appears to be grounded in the statements of the approver and a set of Excel sheets recovered from a pen drive. These sheets are unsigned, do not bear the Applicants' names, and were not recovered from their possession. Further, the prosecution complaint does not disclose any direct financial flow of alleged bribe money to Applicant Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora. It is rather the case that such funds were allegedly collected by Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh, now an approver. In these circumstances, while the evidentiary weight and reliability of the said materials can only be tested during trial, at present, the same are not conclusive enough for the court to deny the benefit of bail to the Applicants.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 April, 2025

In the present case, the core of the ED's case against the Applicants appears to be grounded in the statements of the approver and a set of Excel sheets recovered from a pen drive. These sheets are unsigned, do not bear the Applicants' names, and were not recovered from their possession. Further, the prosecution complaint does not disclose any direct financial flow of alleged bribe money to Applicant Mr. Jagdish Kumar Arora. It is rather the case that such funds were allegedly collected by Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh, now an approver. In these circumstances, while the evidentiary weight and reliability of the said materials can only be tested during trial, at present, the same are not conclusive enough for the court to deny the benefit of bail to the Applicants.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 August, 2025

41. The reliance on judgments such as Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Manish Sisodia (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case. Those cases pertain to situations where the offence was less grave, or the custody prolonged without substantial justification. Here, the allegations concern large-scale financial engineering and deception over nearly a decade, involving multiple fictitious entities, forged documents, and deliberate falsification of corporate books and banking records. The custodial period of the applicant, although considerable, cannot override the risk posed by his release, especially in light of his access to resources, history of alleged tampering, and multiplicity of serious pending cases.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1