Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 405 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj Pratap Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 June, 2022

Bhagwan Das vs State Of Rajathan (2023:Rj-Jd:30374) on 18 September, 2023

Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:06:35 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:30374] (11 of 13) [CRLMP-3728/2023] ihB us fnukad 14-05-2004 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 17 ls 19 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k gS %& "17. In the present case the impugned order dated 16.2.2004 reveals that the learned Magistrate directed the appointment of receiver on the ground that there was apprehension of breach of-peace, meaning thereby that he covered his order under condition No. (i) as mentioned above i.e. the provision of emergency.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M G Vyas - Full Document

The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna ... vs Raju S/O Chhannulal Birha on 31 October, 2023

In the decision of Manoj Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court laid emphasis that the burden of iliciting mitigating circumstances, lies on the Court, which has to consider them liberally and expansively. On the other hand, the responsibility of providing material to show that the accused is beyond the scope of reform or rehabilitation, thereby unquestionably falls on the State.
Bombay High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

Raju S/O. Chhannulal Birha vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Hingna, ... on 31 October, 2023

In the decision of Manoj Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court laid emphasis that the burden of iliciting mitigating circumstances, lies on the Court, which has to consider them liberally and expansively. On the other hand, the responsibility of providing material to show that the accused is beyond the scope of reform or rehabilitation, thereby unquestionably falls on the State.
Bombay High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

X (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 March, 2023

14. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015", it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available. A similar view has been taken in cases of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan1, Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan2, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan3, Udaibhan Singh @ Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P.5, Maroof v. State of U.P.6.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document

X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 March, 2023

14. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015", it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available. A similar view has been taken in cases of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan1, Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan2, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan3, Udaibhan Singh @ Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P.5, Maroof v. State of U.P.6.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document

X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2023

13. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015", it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available. A similar view has been taken in cases of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan1, Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan2, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan3, Udaibhan Singh @ Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P.5, Maroof v. State of U.P.6.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next