Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 248 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

Tariq Ahmad Sofi vs State Of J&K; & Ors on 7 March, 2017

29. Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795, is a case which basically related to Contempt of Court. There, in a petition for habeas corpus, notice issued was accepted in the open Court by the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana. A direction was issued by the Supreme Court to respondent no.3 to produce the detenu and the taxi driver. Respondents 3 to 5 were also directed to file affidavit indicating the circumstances under which they took the detenu and the driver of the taxi car into custody. These respondents in their affidavit denied the allegations. The Court then directed respondent no.1, Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, through his counsel, to trace the detenu and the taxi driver, and produce them before the Court on the following day. However, no affidavit was filed by the Home Secretary. Some new developments took place in the case thereafter and the Supreme Court passed numerous appropriate directions and orders in relation thereto. So far as the conduct of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Home Department, was concerned, the Supreme Court in paragraph 49 of the judgment, inter alia, laid down as under:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Tariq Ahmad Sofi vs State Of J&K & Ors on 7 March, 2017

29. Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795, is a case which basically related to Contempt of Court. There, in a petition for habeas corpus, notice issued was accepted in the open Court by the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana. A direction was issued by the Supreme Court to respondent no.3 to produce the detenu and the taxi driver. Respondents 3 to 5 were also directed to file affidavit indicating the circumstances under which they took the detenu and the driver of the taxi car into custody. These respondents in their affidavit denied the allegations. The Court then directed respondent no.1, Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, through his counsel, to trace the detenu and the taxi driver, and produce them before the Court on the following day. However, no affidavit was filed by the Home Secretary. Some new developments took place in the case thereafter and the Supreme Court passed numerous appropriate directions and orders in relation thereto. So far as the conduct of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Home Department, was concerned, the Supreme Court in paragraph 49 of the judgment, inter alia, laid down as under:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 28 May, 1996

41. Before concluding, we express our serious concern about the manner in which the investigation in criminal cases are made by the Police Officers in recent times. We have come across many instances where the Police had acted not to uphold the dignity of law and protect the citizens, but in aid of private cause and to oppress the citizens. This requires to be checked immediately and we expect and trust that the Director General of Police, Rajasthan shall take a serious view in such cases as and when such instances come to his notice. We would like to state a similar agony expressed by Hon'ble Justice Faizan Uddin in Dhananjay Sharma's case (Supra) wherein he observed:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2010

21. Dhanajay Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 757 relied on by the petitioner, a petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ Crl. Misc.A 3314/2006 in WP(Crl.) 938/2001 Page 21 of 27 of habeas corpus for the release of one Dhananjay Sharma from illegal and unauthorized custody of the Haryana Police. Pursuant to the direction of the Court to have a search made and to produce the detenu in court, affidavits were filed by Respondents. CBI was asked to find out the veracity of the statements made by the deponents. It was found that the statements made in the affidavits by the respondents were false and contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondent. In the case of the petitioner, contempt proceedings have not been initiated but an application has been filed under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a specific plea has been taken by the respondents that after the application of the petitioner for alleged Contempt of Court has become barred by time, the present application has been filed. Similarly In Re. Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501, an order of The Supreme Court was found to be forged and fabricated and therefore, Contempt proceedings were initiated. The Court made some observations about the nature, scope and object of the law of contempt of Court.-
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next