Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Budhraj Singh Son Of Shamsher Singh, Jai ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 May, 2006

Istiyak vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko. on 31 August, 2022

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the complainant has been served as stated by the learned A.G.A. According to the first information report, the present appellant along with other co-accused person(s) is said to have entered into the house of the victim and committed rape upon her. The co-accused, Chhote has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2018 (Chhote vs. State of U.P. and another).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Omaxe Residency-I Resident Welfare ... vs V.C.Lucknow Development Authority ... on 6 March, 2019

38: The last judgment which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh (Supra) is in regard to the delegation of power from one Deputy Registrar or Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar or Assistant Registrar and transfer the same to any other Deputy Registrar, Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar Registrar or Assistant Registrar, wherein this Court has held that the Registrar does not have power to delegate jurisdiction of one Assistant Registrar to another Deputy Registrar.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - I Ali - Full Document

Dda vs M/S Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. on 12 May, 2020

Insofar as the judgment in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh (supra) is concerned, this was a case where a writ petition had been filed before the Allahabad High Court and all that the Court observed was that since the period of six months had also expired, issuance of a writ of mandamus was not possible and any further extension was possible only if the parties sought such extension in accordance with provisions of Section 29A of the Act, before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The issue of competence of a Civil Court to entertain a petition under Section 29A was neither raised nor decided by the Court. Both the judgments, therefore, have no application to the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - J Singh - Full Document

Naresh Kumar vs The Director, All India Institute Of ... on 17 February, 2014

According to Allahabad High Court, the relevant provisions regulating procedural safeguards and factors indicated in decision of Shamsher Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(1993) UPLBEC 488] were not taken into consideration while determining the quantum of punishment. In this case as well, it is noted that in the absence of the petitioner filing an appropriate evidence to justify his absence, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned order, moreso, in exercise of the W.P.(C)1075/2014 Page 6 of 8 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Tej Bahadur @ Chhota vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2020

This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit, in Bail Application No. 222 of 2020 CNR No. UPPB-0100-0266-2020 (Tej Bahadur @ Chhota vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 670 of 2019, under Section 306 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Anoop Singh vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2023

It is further argued while placing the said supplementary affidavit that Krishna Devi the mother of the deceased and wife of the first informant was examined as P.W.-2 who also did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is false and without any evidence since the two witnesses have stated that there had been no demand of dowry ever by the accused persons from their daughter who was never tortured by them. She was having a mental illness and due to the same she used to remain depressed. It is argued that co-accused Abhishek Singh has been granted bail by the trial court concerned vide order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Bail Application No. 1462 of 2022 (Abhishek Singh @ Budhraj Singh vs. State of U.P.). Further co-accused Suman Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased has aslo been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37333 of 2022, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 and is in jail since 03.03.2022.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Chhote @ Malkhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2015

The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer. Keeping in view that the applicant is in custody since 17.12.2014 and the charge-sheet has been filed, the case M.Cr.C.No. 61/2015 (Chote @ Malkhan Vs. State of M.P.) 2 would take a considerable time for disposal, no offence is punishable for imprisonment of life and is triable by JMFC, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1