Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Anand Teltumbde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 February, 2020

Dr. Anand Teltumbde vs The National Investigation Agency And ... on 18 November, 2022

(iii) Jyoti Jagtap Vs. National Investigation Agency 24 and (iv) Anand Teltumbde Vs. State of Maharashtra 25 and submitted that the role of the Appellant in the present crime has to be considered on a higher footing as he being the think tank and a senior and active member of the CPI(M) than the role played by Hany Babu (Accused No.12) or for that matter even Jyoti Jagtap (Accused No.15) who have been denied bail by this Court in the same case. He submitted that Appellant's role needs to be distinguished critically. He therefore submitted that, the present Appeal be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Namdev Umale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ps ... on 23 December, 2025

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of i) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maha- rashtra And Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, ii) Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517, iii) XXXX Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & An- other Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023, iv) Naim Ahamed V. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No. 257/2023, v) Smit s/o Go- vardhan Teltumbade Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Applica- tion (APL) No. 169 of 2023.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Syed Azharuddin vs State By Kalasipalya Ps on 7 October, 2020

5. Per contra learned SPP-II vehemently argued and submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 43D(4) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the present petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable and petition is liable to be dismissed. It is his further submission that by order dated 28.03.2020 at the time of filing of charge sheet the investigating officer has sought permission to include The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 and further investigation has been sought and the Hon'ble Court has also granted said permission to proceed with the said matter. Under the circumstances at this juncture it cannot be said that the provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has not been applied. It is his further submission that the said 7 provision of law has not been brought during the course of arguments before the Co-ordinate Bench due to oversight. Due to non production of materials, the Co-ordinate Bench granted bail. It is his further submission that the said issue had come up before the Hon'ble Apex Court under similar circumstances how the bail application has to be appreciated has been discussed in the case of Anand Teltumbde Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No(s).1916/2020 and while upholding the said provision it has been held that petition is not maintainable. In that light it is his submission the present petition is not maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next