Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan ... vs Thr. Principal Secretary Dept. Bhopal on 2 December, 2011

Gajendra Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2021

7. The applicant will not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner and would not move in their vicinity and further would mark his appearance before the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10 am to 1.30 pm till filing of charge-sheet; and 8- ,rn~ }kjk muds vfHkHkk"kd }kjk nh xbZ opu ds vuqlkj ;g Hkh ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izR;sd vkosndx.k 05 ikS/kksa dk ¼ Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok uhe@ihiy½ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA izR;sd vkosndx.k dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ 9- izR;sd vkosndx.k fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV ÅWaps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] izR;sd vkosndx.k dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk gksxsaA rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xh A 10- o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C.No. 56667/2021 (Gajendra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. )
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 December, 2013

Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents, respondent no. 2 the Director General of Police shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion and after considering the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police under Rule 70 of the Police Regulation, shall take a decision for grant of out of 4 Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M. P. and others.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rajendra Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2019

Learned counsel for the petitioner as stated earlier has submitted that if the order of conviction is not stayed then he shall 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.4531 OF 2019 (Rajendra Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh) not be reinstated which is apparent from the letter of Vice Chancellor. It is also clear that if the Court suspends the operation of conviction that will not impinge upon the continuance of appeal which is pending. The progress in the appeal is already stalled as defense evidence is being recorded by the trial Court. Thus, I find sufficient reason to suspend the conviction of petitioner under Section 509 of IPC in these circumstances.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radheshyam Mandloi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2021

[5] Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer by contending that respondent No.2 has already joined at the place of transfer. The respondent No.2 has been absorbed in newly created Nagar Parishad with effect from 1/4/2015 on the post of Revenue Inspector (5200-20200 + 2100 GP). Heavy reliance is placed on the order passed by division bench in WA No.1458/2019 (Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of MP & Ors.) by contending that CMO Class A can be transferred as a Dy. Commissioner in Municipal Corporation. It is pointed out that same view is taken by learned Single Judge.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - S Paul - Full Document

Girraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 September, 2015

The applicant has come up with this third application on the ground that in similar cases M.Cr.C. No. 6912/2015 (Ghanshyam Ojha Vs. State) and M.Cr.C. No. 9338/2015 (Rajendra Mishra Vs. State) decided on 01.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 respectively, M.Cr.C. No. 8968/2015 2 regular bail has been granted. Therefore, present applicant is also entitled for the benefit of regular bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next