Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 114 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Accused X vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 April, 2019

Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 19 January, 2026

63. We do not find any substance in the contention that subsequently referred Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2022 dilutes the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in paragraph Nos.36 to 40.8 thereof. Thus, on this count also, we are not in agreement with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 19 January, 2026

63. We do not find any substance in the contention that subsequently referred Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2022 dilutes the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in paragraph Nos.36 to 40.8 thereof. Thus, on this count also, we are not in agreement with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Karthick Theodore vs / on 27 February, 2024

In the case of X V. State of Maharashtra15 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of the appellant who had claimed to be exposed to 15 2023 SCC Online SC 279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29 W.A.(MD)No.1901 of 2021 the horrors of the casting couch syndrome. Appeals had been filed challenging orders of the Bombay High Court allowing anticipatory bail applications filed by the respondent. While quashing the orders and cancelling the bail bonds, the Registry was directed suo motu by the Bench to protect the identity of the appellant and take immediate steps to redact the name of the appellant from the records.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Nino Mathew on 11 May, 2023

42. The Apex Court has held in para 40, more particularly in para 40.4, of Accused X v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 7 SCC 1] that the opportunity of hearing under Sec.235(2) of the Cr.P.C. requires that the accused and the prosecution, at their option, be given meaningful opportunity and that, non-compliance thereof at the trial stage can be rectified in the appellate stage as well as by providing meaningful opportunity.
Kerala High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Khushi Ram vs State on 7 July, 2025

"17. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public 10 'X' v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1; and Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375.
Delhi District Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam on 11 May, 2023

42. The Apex Court has held in para 40, more particularly in para 40.4, of Accused X v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 7 SCC 1] that the opportunity of hearing under Sec.235(2) of the Cr.P.C. requires that the accused and the prosecution, at their option, be given meaningful opportunity and that, non-compliance thereof at the trial stage can be rectified in the appellate stage as well as by providing meaningful opportunity.
Kerala High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next