Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Nanka S/O Chimliya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 1988

Nanka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2022

It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned Jail Authority is directed to follow the 3 M.Cr.C.No.12781/2022 (Nanka Vs. State of M.P.) directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

Kishansingh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 August, 1994

In this respect, we place reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, rendered in Nanka v. State (1979 Cri LLR (Raj) 193), para 8 as well as para 9 of that decision, wherein it has been observed by learned Judges that the testimony of sole eye-witness is not free from infirmities and is not such as implicit reliance could be placed on it and, therefore it was argued by Shri Champawat that the accused persons deserve benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R R Yadav - Full Document

Madhya Alias Mahadev vs State Of M.P. on 5 January, 2006

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Mangleshwar Singh (Dr.) v. State of M.P. 2003 Cr LR (MP) 521 : 2003 Cri LJ (NOC) 271; Omprakash Agrawal v. State of M.P.. 2003 (1) MPHT 127 : 2003 Cri LJ 4138; Anant Kumar Denial v. State of Chhattisgarh 2003 (5) MPHT6 (CO); Nanka v. State of M.P. 1998 Cr LR (MP) 336; Utkal v. State of M.P. 1997 Cr LR (MP) 354; Raja Lal alias Kamlesh S/o Phillips v. The State of M.P. 1998 Cr LR(MP) 354; Manish Tiwari v. State of M.P. 2001 Cr LR (MP) 167, and on the basis of these reported cases he submitted that no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the accused petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1