Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Harish Chandra Tewari, Son Of Sri Gaya ... vs The State Of U.P. Through The Secretary ... on 15 December, 2003

Gaya Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., ... on 1 August, 2023

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide theCase No. T202204230407773 (Gaya Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of one year from the next date fixed in the case, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Ramanandan Prasad vs State Of Orissa on 2 July, 2004

8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant, tried to raise several infirmities in the prosecution of the appellant. According to him, prosecution was not sure as to the exact; amount of defalcation, inasmuch as the amount varied from stage to stage and the charges were defective. He submitted that though the prosecution case was that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 to make good the shortage, the evidence led by the prosecution reveals that there was misappropriation of Rs. 40,217.15 and the charge framed against the appellant shows that there was a misappropriation of Rs. 50,217.15. Relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. State of U. P., 1993 Cri LJ 2425, Mr. Panda submitted that as the charge itself was defective, conviction thereunder is liable to be set aside. Mr. Panda also forcefully urged that the entrustment of the amount to the appellant having not been proved, no conviction for misappropriation of any amount can be made.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A S Naidu - Full Document

Harsh Tiwari @ Harish Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 21 October, 2020

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 13.3.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act ,Court No.4, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020 (Harsh Tiwari @ Harish Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of order dated 23.1.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 150 of 2019 , under Sections- 323, 328, 342, 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C.,3/4, 16/17 POCSO Act and 3(2) (5) of S.C./S.T. Act Police Station- Belipur , District- Gorakhpur .
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document

Nanke @ Chandrika Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 23 November, 2022

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 06.03.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3866 of 2013 (Nanke alias Chandrika Prasad vs. State of U.P.). It is further submitted that under misconception and as having been informed by counsel representing the appellant before the court below that the case is over, he did not attend the proceedings and was not aware that a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is submitted that observation of the court below is that the applicant is absconding for last 2-3 years but most of the aforesaid period is covered by Covid-19 pandemic. Submission, therefore, is that no deliberate omission is on the part of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the proceedings before the court below.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Satish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2024

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that Kayam Singh was medically examined wherein the doctor found a lacerated wound on the neck below the left ear and abrasion on the top of shoulder. It is argued that subsequently Kayam Singh died on 16.10.2021 in the hospital. It is argued that cause of death as opined by the doctor is coma as a result of ante mortem injury. It is argued that the present dispute appears to have taken place at the spur of moment without any premeditation and there was no use of any weapon or arms and ammunition in the incident. It is argued that after death of the deceased Section 304 I.P.C. was added. It is argued that identically placed co-accused Gaya Prasad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39423 of 2023 (Gaya Prasad vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said order is anenxure no. 7 to the affidavit. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-13 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.3.2024.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Gaya Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 21 April, 2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of wrong and concocted story. Even otherwise, he submits that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute and get the compounding done and for the said purpose he has approached this Court by means of Writ C No.543 of 2026 (Gaya Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others), which has been disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 13.03.2026 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and the same was directed to be disposed of expeditiously. He further submits that the appeal shall be filed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1