Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Veeru @ Virendra Rai vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 15 September, 2014

Veeru @ Veerendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2019

After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed but with stringent condition, in view of nature of offence and bail jump it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties each of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No. 26316/2019 (Veeru @ Veerendra Vs The State of M.P. ) Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil @ Bade Guddu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2014

In the show cause notice, the competent Authority was obliged to explicitly mention the three cases in which the appellant has been convicted for the stated offence on three occasions in the preceding three years before the issuance of show cause notice. That is conspicuously absent in the show cause notice. In absence thereof, the competent Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction to pass externment order against the petitioner. This legal position has been adverted to by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Veeru @ Virendra Rai Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ Petition No.833/2014, decided on 15.09.2014. In paragraph 7, the learned Single Judge after analyzing the facts of that case and having noticed that the petitioner in that case had not suffered Writ Appeal No.816 of 2014 5 conviction in respect of the stated offence on three occasions in three years' period preceding the issuance of the externment order, held that the externment order cannot be sustained in law. We have no hesitation in affirming that view taken by the learned Single Judge as the same is manifest from the bare provision in the Act of 1990. Having said this, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order passed by the competent Authority to extern the appellant from Damoh and surrounding Districts. Besides this, nothing more is required to be said.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Arbaz Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2023

7. He also cited the orders passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Babulal Vs. State of MP passed in M.Cr.C No.3641/2023, Parmanan Vs. State of MP passed in M.Cr.C No.41704/2023, Vikram Singh Vs. State of MP passed in M.Cr.C No4510/2023, Bhuralal Vs. State Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 06-11-2023 17:38:16 6 of MP passed in CRR No.4148/2023, Virandra @ Veeru Vs State of MP passed in CRR No.2681/2023 and Jaysingh and Anr Vs. State of MP passed in CRR No.3966/2023.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Virendra @ Veera Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 27 November, 2017

This court has by order dated 21.11.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. 19830/2017 granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Bharat detailing the prosecution case and the reasons for grant of anticipatory bail to him. The applicant and the said co- accused are similarly placed. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to get anticipatory bail on the principle of parity. Hence, the application is allowed. Applicant Virendra @ Veera is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.12.2017 for interrogations and submission of documentary proofs of his permanent residential address and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the case, in that event he will release him on bail immediately upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(forty Thousand) with one solvent M.Cr.C.22722/2017 Virendra @ Veera Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. surety of the same amount to his/her satisfaction. Further, the applicant will abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated time period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled in respect of him.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Veeru @ Virendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.15993/2018 (VEERU @ VIRENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Learned counsel for the petitioner Veeru @ Virendra submits that the role that has been ascribed to petitioner Veeru @ Virendra in prosecution case, particularly in the statements of witness Mukundi is that he beat the deceased with stick. The victim has not suffered any significant injury caused by a hard and blunt object. The only life threatening injury that has been sustained by the victim is on chest. It is clear from the statement of Mukundi that aforesaid injury was caused to him by co-accused Chhotu Choudhary by knife. It has also been submitted that petitioner Veeru @ Virendra has been in custody since 02.11.2016; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next