Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1391 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Prakash Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr.Etc on 14 March, 2012

Jai Prakash vs . The State & Anr. on 22 July, 2014

15. In the present facts, the mother of the plaintiff has been reported missing from 29.09.94 and the suit was instituted on 06.12.2012. A period of more than 7 years has lapsed since the mother of plaintiff was last heard of. The son would be best placed to have heard from him in the event of the mother still being alive when father is also dead. Considering that the mother of plaintiff was also not mentally fit as mentioned in DD No. 20A Dated 29.09.94, the preponderance of probabilities hint towards her demise. There is no objection from any other person regarding the present missing status of the mother of plaintiff namely Chanderwati. The Court thus draws the presumptions under Section 107 & 108 of the Evidence Act in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is held to have duly discharged the burden of proving that mother of plaintiff namely Smt. Chanderwati is Suit No. 379/12 Page No. 5/6 Jai Prakash Vs. The State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Teru Majhi & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 April, 2014

In 2012 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 379 (Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar), the Supreme Court was concerned with an appeal directed against grant of anticipatory bail. Their Lordships considered, the provisions of Section 438 of the Court of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and noted the previous decisions relating to anticipatory bail. Their Lordships were of the view that anticipatory bail would be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court was prima facie of the view that the applicant was falsely implicated in the crime and that the accused would not misuse his liberty. It was not suggested by the Public Prosecutor that, an accused under the NDPS Act, 1985 did not have recourse to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. What was suggested was that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to exercise such power.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 105 - Cited by 6 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Smt. P Kalpana Occ Housewife R/O 63 ... vs The State Of Telangana Rep By Its Public ... on 22 December, 2016

(Emphasis supplied) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the absence of recording any finding, that there is no prima facie material to conclude that this petitioner did commit no offence, the Court cannot grant pre-arrest bail as a matter of course and placed reliance on the judgment in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (referred supra), wherein, the Apex Court in paragraphs 13, 14 & 16 held as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 74 - Cited by 4 - M S Murthy - Full Document

State vs Ishar @ Golu on 28 July, 2014

34 It is also matter of record that the incident of the present case came to the knowledge of the police vide DD No.68B Ex.PW2/A. In the charge sheet, it has been explained that the said DD was kept pending as no one come forward to make the statement. It is only on 24.04.2012, when the complainant came to police station to get recorded her statement and on the basis of the same, FIR of the present case was registered. So, the delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained by the complainant while deposing in the Court. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by accused in case of Jai SC No.23/2013 State Vs. Ishar @ Golu Page 18 of 32 Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) and State Vs. Naresh & Ors. (supra) are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Chinni Sudeshna vs S Nagaraj on 1 October, 2015

18. We have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2012 SC 1676 relied upon by the respondent. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining an appeal against an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused which was earlier rejected by the Session Court. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made certain 12 observations in paragraph No.19. The sequitur from the said judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Kalpana vs The State Of Ap., on 4 June, 2018

(Emphasis supplied) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the absence of recording any finding, that there is no prima facie material to conclude that this petitioner did commit no offence, the Court cannot grant pre-arrest bail as a matter of course and placed reliance on the judgment in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (referred supra), wherein, the Apex Court in paragraphs 13, 14 & 16 held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next