Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 510 (3.62 seconds)
Documents citing Kallu @ Masih & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2006

Raj Kishor Behera And Another vs State Of Odisha on 23 August, 2022

In Kallu@ Masih v. State of M.P. (supra), twenty-seven persons had been sent up for trial. The trial Court acquitted all the twenty-seven. In the appeal filed by the State, leave was granted by the High Court only with regard to five, since they had been specifically named as the persons committing the offence and causing the injuries to the deceased and others. One of the five got the benefit of doubt "though his presence as a member of the group was accepted." As a result, only four were convicted. The Supreme Court then explained as under:
Orissa High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

Mahaveer @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2018

Having heard the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, as now the detail is available in the case diary regarding previously registered all crimes against the present applicant and except above- mentioned two crimes, in relation to other crimes either applicant has been acquitted or closure report has been submitted and in one crime he is not an accused, and his case does not appears more serious than Sonu to whom benefit of regular bail has been granted by this Court on 24.08.2018, therefore, the case of present applicant, his case appears fit for granting him benefit of regular bail. Hence, this fourth (repeat) application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant - Mahaveer alias Kallu be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) with two solvent 4 M.Cr.C.40224/2018 Mahaveer alias Kallu Vs. State of M.P. sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Gwalior for his regular appearance before the Court concerned on fixed dates, keeping in view his previous history, on compliance of following conditions:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalli @ Kalla vs State Of Mp on 23 June, 2021

7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about her residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-29769-2021 (KALLI @ KALLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Laljibhai Jivabhai Vara on 3 October, 2025

Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dara Singh @ Rabindra Ku. Pal And vs State Of Odisha on 7 September, 2022

In Kallu Alias Masih v. State of M.P. (supra), it was shown that one of the five got the benefit of doubt "though his presence as a member of the group was accepted". It was in those circumstances that the conviction under Section 149 IPC was sustained. In the present case, however, none among the thirteen accused persons who have been acquitted have been found to be members of an unlawful assembly.
Orissa High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - C Dash - Full Document

Surendra Singh Sikarwar @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2020

1- vkosnd Loa; }kjk fu"ikfnr can i= dh leLr fuca/kuks ,oa 'krksZ dk vuqikyu djsxkA 2- vkosnd vUos"[email protected] esa izdj.k ,oa funsZ'kkuqlkj lg;ksx djsxkA 3- vkosnd ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks izyksHku] /kedh vFkok opu nsus esa Lo;a dks fyIr ugha djsxk] tks fd mls@mldks ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh ls izdVhdj.k djus ls izofjr djs] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks( 4- vkosnd ftl vijk/k ds fy, nks"kh gS ml izdkj dk lekUk vijk/k dkfjr ugha djsxk A 5- vkosnd fopkj.k ds nkSjku vuko';d LFkxu dh ekWx ugh djsxkA 6- vkosnd fopkj.k U;k;ky;@vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh iwoZ vuqefr ds fcuk Hkkjr ugh NksMsxkA tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] ,oa 7- blds vfrfjDr mijksDr of.kZr tekur dk ykHk bl 'krZ ds v/khu gksxk fd vkosnd izR;sd cq/kokj vkSj xq:okj dks lqcg 9 cts ls nksigj 1 cts rd vkxkeh Ng% ekg ds fy, ftyk vLirky. ftyk eqjSuk esa viuh lsok,sa nsxk ,oa mldh Hkwfedk ckg~; foHkkx ds ejhtksa dks] MkWDVjksa ,oa dEikmUMjksa }kjk nh tkus okyh lsokvksa esa lgk;rk djus dh gksxhA mls uk rks "kY; d{k ¼vkWijs'ku fFk;sVj½ vkSj uk gh futh okMkasZ esa tkus dh vuqefr gksxh vkSj uk gh fdlh izdkj dh nokbZ ;k batsD'ku bR;kfn ejhtksa dks yxkus dh vuqefr gksxhA og fdlh Hkh izdkj ls THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.5258/2020 (Surendra Singh Sikarwar alias Kallu Vs. State of M.P.) vius }kjk ejhtksa dks ladze.k vFkok vlqfo/kk ugh nsxk vkSj MkWDVj bl ckr dks lqfuf'pr djssaxs] rkfd vkosnd mDr vLirky ds fy, ,d lgk;d dh Hkwfedk fuHkk, uk fd vius fdlh d`R; ls ejhtksa vFkok MkWDVjksa@vLirky iz'kklu dks fdlh izdkj dh vlqfo/kk dkfjr djsA ;g funZs'k vkosnd dh vk;q ,oa Hkfo"; dh laHkkoukvksa dks ns[kdj fn;k x;k gS rkfd mls lekt dh eq[; /kkjk esa vkus dk ,d volj izkIr gks ldsA eq[; fpfdRld ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ¼CMHO½@vLirky v/kh{kd] ftyk eqjSuk] vkosnd dks ckg~; foHkkx esa dk;Z djus dh vuqefr iznku djsaxs vkSj vkosnd dks fpfdRlk lsok,sa tSls %& lkQ lQkbZ dh O;oLFkk cuk, j[kuk] izkFkfed mipkj esa lg;ksx djuk] jftLVªs'ku dk;Z ,oa ejhtksa dh lqfo/kkvksa dks /;ku esa j[kdj fd, tkus okys dk;Z nsaxsA bu dk;ksZa dks djus ls laHkor% vkosnd dks izkFkfed fpfdRlk vFkok izkd`frd vkinkvksa ls fuiVus dh izkFkfed f'k{kk fey ldsxh] rkfd og lekt dh eq[; /kkjk esa vkus ds lkFk&lkFk vius {ks= esa vkink izca/ku Loa;lsod ¼volunteer) ds rkSj ij dk;Z dj ldsA 8- ;gkWa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd vLirky@vLirky iz'kklu ,oa jksfx;ksa ds fy, fdlh Hkh izdkj ds laØe.k@vlqfo/kk vFkok ijs'kkuh dk dkj.k ugha cusxk ,oa vLirky iz'kklu }kjk mlds nqO;Zogkj vFkok voKkiw.kZ vkpj.k dh tkudkjh feyus dh fLFkfr esa ;g rF; mlds tekur vkosnu dks [kkfjt djus dk vk/kkj cu ldsxkA vkosnd }kjk lq/kkj ds fy, lq>ko vkSj mlds }kjk fd, x, dk;Z dk izfrosnu] vxLr] 2020] esa izLrqr fd, tk;saxsA 9- bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA lacaf/kr eq[; fpfdRld vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr fd;k tk, ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ,d ewyizfr vuqikyu ds fy, Hksth tk,A Certified copy as per rules.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next