Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Bhola @ Bhairon Prasad Raghuvanshi on 6 February, 2003

State vs . Anil @ Bhola And Ors. Sc No. 24/11 on 30 May, 2015

18.The aforesaid incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and their statements were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. All the accused persons in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC have taken a defence that they have been falsely implicated in this case and that no contraband had been recovered from their possession or at their instance at any point of time. In particular accused Hari Prasad Verma has stated that he was arrested by the police on 13.02.2011 itself and on that day, he received a telephonic call by his wife intimating that the vehicle of their son who was student of law at Amity had broken down and his wife asked him to pick him up from there. In pursuance of the same, he left for Delhi from Sonepat in his Maruti car bearing no. UP 16B 5987 alongwith one family friend namely Ms. Dimple whom he knew from the last about 20­22 years as she was his tenant and she had also requested him to take along as she wanted to meet her sister on Kingsway Camp, Delhi. At about 09.00 PM when they reached Singhu Border, Karnal Bypass, they noticed that barricades had been put up at the said road and that vehicles were going from slow and when the turn of their car came to cross the said barricades, 6­7 persons surrounded their car and forced them to get down from the car and they were made to sit on the rear seat and the said FIR No. 8/11 PS Special Cell Page 20 of 57 State vs. Anil @ Bhola and ors. SC No. 24/11 persons drove their car about 100­200 mtr away from the said place where a Qualis vehicle was already parked and then they were shifted to the said Qualis vehicle where one old man was already sitting name of the said old man was revealed as Om Prakash and the police officials who had apprehended them revealed their names as Bijender and Hawa Singh. From Singhu Border, they all were taken to Meera Bagh, Keshav Pur via Mukarba Chowk, Pitampura, Madhuban Chowk and Piragarhi. On the way one the directions of the police officials, he (accused Hari Prasad) called co­accused Anil @ Bhola from one of his mobile no. 9729945950 and asked him to come with an amount of Rs.50,000/­ at Meerabagh, Keshavpur bus depot at about 10.15 PM and he had made almost seven calls to him between 09­09.30 PM. After they reached Meerabagh, Keshavpur, he again made a call to Anil @ Bhola and after the said call, Anil came to the spot within 10­15 minutes who had come on a bike and he was overpowered by the police officials. At Keshavpur bus depot, 6­7 more persons had also joined the police party. Thereafter he himself, Ms. Dimple and Om Prakash were taken away from the said spot in the said Qualis vehicle to a building in sector 6, Rohini and it was told that the said building was the office of Special Cell.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sunny @ Bhairon & Anr. on 13 July, 2009

23. PW3 in his cross­examination deposed that when his statement was being recorded by the police, he was not fit to make statement and by the time the doctor came he lost consciousness. In respect of this fact, PW4, who had taken him to the hospital alongwith PW10, deposed that when he met the injured, the injured was lying on the road and was unconscious, totally contrary to the deposition of PW3 who deposed that he was proceeding towards his house. PW4 further deposed that when the injured PW3 was taken to the hospital he was unconscious. He again said that the injured was slightly conscious and could tell his name only and he answered the rest of the questions put by the doctor in signals by waving his hand and then again deposed that the injured was talking but could not tell his name at the place where he met them. His entire deposition is thus self­contradictory and contrary to that of PW3. He further deposed that the injured was wearing black pant, white banyan and white shirt and the pant was also stained with blood and was seized. This deposition is again not only contrary to the deposition of Page 10 of 19 State Vs. Sunny @ Bhairon & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Bhola on 23 August, 2025

8. HC Sunil was examined as PW2. He stated thus: "On 03.11.2023, I was posted at PS Dabri. On that day, on receiving DD No. 99A regarding the apprehension of accused along with illicit liquor I reached at the spot i.e H No. A55, JJ Colony, Pocket 4, Delhi where Ct. Deepak met me and handed over the accused along with recovered liquor from him to me. I requested some passers by to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and address. Thereafter, the said katta was checked it was found containing 140 qtr. Bottles of mota masaledar desi sharab. Thereafter, I took out one qtr bottle as sample and the rest of the case property sealed with the seal of SK. The sample bottles were also sealed with the seal of SK. Form M-29 was filled up Mark D bearing my signature at point X. Seizure memo of case property was prepared vide memo already Ex. PW1/A bears my signature at point X. Thereafter, I recorded statement of Ct. Deepak which is already Ex.PW1/B bears my attesting signature at point X and prepared a rukka already Ex.PW1/C Digitally signed by FIR NO. 780/2023 State Vs. Bhola 3 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Bhola on 12 July, 2011

19. Not only this, the seal after its use was not handed over to some independent person till the deposition of the knife in the Malkhana and tampering State Vs. Bhola Page 9/10 FIR no. 320/06 of the seal or its reuse also cannot be ruled out. The prosecution although, has tried to prove its case but there is still a reasonable doubt regarding the false implication of the accused in the hands of the police. The benefit always goes to the accused .
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Yogesh @ Bhola on 28 March, 2022

STATE Vs. YOGESH @ BHOLA : 10543 /2019 (VasantKunj South) Page No. 3 of 8 Paramvir and Ct. Parveen was on patrolling duty and reiterated the facts of prosecution case. That he asked accused to produce papers of motorcycle, but accused failed to produce the same. PW­5 was duly cross­examined, wherein he said that barricades were already placed near Pillar No. 49 of Metro Station. That there no CCTV camera was installed near Pillar No. 49. That he did not inform Traffic Police regarding the same. That public persons were there as there was a flowing traffic.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Bhola Prasad @ Abhishek on 23 October, 2024

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.05.2019 around 7:45 PM in front of O & P Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Poonam Joshi (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") was going towards her mother's house when a boy came on scooty and snatched her bag/wallet containing Rs 4,000/-, ATM Card, Credit Card, ID Cards and CGHS forms etc and ran towards Dilshad Colony. The complainant called on 100 1 of 6 State vs Bhola Prasad @ Abhishek; FIR 318/2019 CR No.6849/2019 number and informed the police. Bhola Prasad @ Abhishek was apprehended in another FIR, made disclosure in the present case and was accordingly arrested (hereinafter referred as "the accused"). The case property could not be recovered. Thus, FIR was registered with respect to the allegations made by the complainant against the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kusum vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. ... on 6 February, 2006

We are, therefore, of the opinion that all the cases where probationers have been released and where appeals are pending or on mere completion of 5 years or 6 years should be reviewed again. Board is directed to review all the cases and shall also decide the application of the petitioner in the light of the directions given above. Order rejecting the application of petitioner passed by the Board is quashed with a direction to the Board to reconsider the case in the light of judgment in the case of Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. and State of M.P. v. Bhola (supra) and earlier order passed. As petitioner has remained in jail for more than 13 years, Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 11 - D Misra - Full Document

Srinivasa Institute Of Engineering And ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 30 June, 2010

Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and another v. Bhola alias Bhairon Prasad Raghuvanshi, (2003) 3 SCC 1, wherein the issue in question was when a delegated legislation can be declared invalid. It is held therein that a delegated legislation can be declared invalid mainly on two grounds viz., (i) when it is in violation of any provision of the Constitution and (ii) when it is in violative of the enabling Act.
Madras High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 6 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next