Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 630 (3.86 seconds)
Documents citing Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 April, 2005

Sri Hemant Soren vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 June, 2024

60. The present case in the perspective of the legal pronouncements referred to above is manifest with circumstantial evidence and according to the Enforcement Directorate the chain is complete thereby foisting the role of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu, Ranchi. It is pertinent to note that in the numerous registers and revenue records recovered from the premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad the name of the petitioner or his family members does not figure. The plan of a Banquet Hall retrieved from the mobile of Binod Singh in his WhatsApp chat with the petitioner depicts Page 51 of 55 B.A. No. 4892 of 2024 the area as Lalu Khatal, and since the 8.86 acres of land allegedly possessed by the petitioner is in the vicinity of Lalu Khatal and since there was no other open tract of land of considerable dimension in the said area it was inferred that the plan of the Banquet Hall was prepared at the behest of the petitioner being oblivious to the fact that even the clients name did not figure in the plan submitted by Grid Consultants.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Avtar Singh Kocchar @ Dolly vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 November, 2023

"29. The Court should bear in mind the principles enunciated in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294. We quote paras 43, 44 and 46 resply: "43. Section 21(4) of MCOCA does not make any distinction between an offence which entails punishment of life imprisonment and an imprisonment for a year or two. It does not provide that even in case a person remains behind the bars for a period exceeding three years, although his involvement may be in terms of Section 24 of the Act, the court is prohibited to enlarge him on bail. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own facts. The question as to whether he is involved in the commission of organised crime or abetment thereof must be judged objectively.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Christian Michel James, vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 March, 2022

"22. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra. The decision in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing SignatureNotVerified Page 30of 33 Digitally BAIL APPLN. 2566/2021 SignedBy:SANGEETAANAND SigningDate:12.13.2022 16:23:18 Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty dealt with an analogous provision in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. It has been expounded that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail."
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - M K Ohri - Full Document

Vijay Shukla vs Serious Fraud Investigation Offier on 30 April, 2021

The petitioner did not commit any fraud as defined by explanation to Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and was not beneficiary of any such fraud committed by others. The petitioner has clean antecedents and was not involved in any un-lawful activity. The petitioner has not committed any offence covered by Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and is not likely to commit any offence under the Companies Act, 2013. Both the conditions laid down in Section 212 (6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for grant of bail are satisfied. There is no cogent evidence of any fraudulent act/omission and mens rea on the part of the petitioner and 14 of 40 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 16:41:58 ::: CRM-M-24870-2020 -15- on broad probabilities of the case the petitioner may not be ultimately convicted in the case and the petitioner deserves grant of anticipatory bail on this ground.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next