Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Sunaina Holey vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 May, 2021

Sandeep Arjun Kudale vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2023

WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc 6 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab2, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Manik Taneja & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 4 and of the Bombay High Court in Sunaina Holey v. State of Maharashtra5. 7 Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposed the petitions. He submitted that having regard to the provisions of law, the sections have been rightly invoked by the police. He submitted that the video uploaded by the petitioner was likely to promote enmity between different groups in the society and as such, to prevent the same, the police took prompt steps in registering the FIRs, and apprehending the petitioner. He submitted that it was necessary to do so, to ensure that public tranquility is not disturbed or likely to be disturbed, having 1 (2007) 5 SCC 1 2 (1995) 3 SCC 214 3 (1997) 7 SCC 431 4 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 SQ Pathan 5/36 WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc regard to the situation prevailing then. He submitted that no interference was warranted by this Court, either under its writ jurisdiction or under its inherent powers. FACTS :
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Sandeep Arjun Kudale vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2023

WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc 6 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab2, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Manik Taneja & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 4 and of the Bombay High Court in Sunaina Holey v. State of Maharashtra5. 7 Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposed the petitions. He submitted that having regard to the provisions of law, the sections have been rightly invoked by the police. He submitted that the video uploaded by the petitioner was likely to promote enmity between different groups in the society and as such, to prevent the same, the police took prompt steps in registering the FIRs, and apprehending the petitioner. He submitted that it was necessary to do so, to ensure that public tranquility is not disturbed or likely to be disturbed, having 1 (2007) 5 SCC 1 2 (1995) 3 SCC 214 3 (1997) 7 SCC 431 4 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 SQ Pathan 5/36 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 16:41:51 ::: WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc regard to the situation prevailing then. He submitted that no interference was warranted by this Court, either under its writ jurisdiction or under its inherent powers. FACTS :
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Sandeep Arjun Kudale vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2023

WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc 6 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab2, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Manik Taneja & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 4 and of the Bombay High Court in Sunaina Holey v. State of Maharashtra5. 7 Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposed the petitions. He submitted that having regard to the provisions of law, the sections have been rightly invoked by the police. He submitted that the video uploaded by the petitioner was likely to promote enmity between different groups in the society and as such, to prevent the same, the police took prompt steps in registering the FIRs, and apprehending the petitioner. He submitted that it was necessary to do so, to ensure that public tranquility is not disturbed or likely to be disturbed, having 1 (2007) 5 SCC 1 2 (1995) 3 SCC 214 3 (1997) 7 SCC 431 4 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 SQ Pathan 5/36 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 16:41:46 ::: WP-ST-21880 & 21886-2022.doc regard to the situation prevailing then. He submitted that no interference was warranted by this Court, either under its writ jurisdiction or under its inherent powers. FACTS :
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Kayyum Abdul Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 June, 2024

He submitted that, till an Accused incites people to achieve the goal, it will not be an offence. There is no act of omission or commission at the behest of Accused No.2 to further the Vision document-2047. He submitted that, the individual act of the Appellant cannot be considered as conspiracy to commit an offence, unless it is a conspiracy for waging war or overawing the Government. That, mere conspiracy will not fit in the provision of Section 121-A. In support of his various submissions he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, (i) Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 443; (ii) Mohammad Irfan Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 856; (iii) Javed Ahmad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 249; (iv) Sunaina Holey Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 : (2021) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 674 and; (v) Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

Razi Ahmed Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 June, 2024

He submitted that, till an Accused incites people to achieve the goal, it will not be an offence. There is no act of omission or commission at the behest of Accused No.2 to further the Vision document-2047. He submitted that, the individual act of the Appellant cannot be considered as conspiracy to commit an offence, unless it is a conspiracy for waging war or overawing the Government. That, mere conspiracy will not fit in the provision of Section 121-A. In support of his various submissions he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, (i) Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 443; (ii) Mohammad Irfan Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 856; (iii) Javed Ahmad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 249; (iv) Sunaina Holey Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 : (2021) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 674 and; (v) Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

Unais Umar Khaiyyam Patel vs The Anti - Terrorism Squad And Anr on 11 June, 2024

He submitted that, till an Accused incites people to achieve the goal, it will not be an offence. There is no act of omission or commission at the behest of Accused No.2 to further the Vision document-2047. He submitted that, the individual act of the Appellant cannot be considered as conspiracy to commit an offence, unless it is a conspiracy for waging war or overawing the Government. That, mere conspiracy will not fit in the provision of Section 121-A. In support of his various submissions he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, (i) Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 443; (ii) Mohammad Irfan Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 856; (iii) Javed Ahmad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 249; (iv) Sunaina Holey Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127 : (2021) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 674 and; (v) Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document
1