Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 831 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Sunita Gandharv vs State Of Mp on 8 October, 2020

Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021

4. In the course of argument of appeal before the Single Bench, an objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the accused is also being tried for offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, therefore, he should have filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court rather than filing appeal. It was argued that when the [4] Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 accused is being tried for offences of POCSO Act as well as for offences under the Atrocities Act, such trial should be conducted by the Special Judge notified for trial of the cases registered under POCSO Act, whereas, in the present case, the trial is being conducted by the Special Judge notified for trial of the cases registered under the Atrocities Act. It was therefore argued that the trial against the accused stood vitiated and a direction be issued to transfer this case to the court of Special Judge notified for trial of the cases under the POCSO Act. Reliance was placed on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Sunita Gandharva (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Rahul Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2021

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and this is first offence of applicant, therefore, this court intends to allow the application but with certain stringent conditions and with reformatory measures as per judgment passed in the case of Smt. Sunita Gandharva Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2020(3)MPLJ (Cri.)247, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 3 Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - A Pathak - Full Document

Gopal Krishna Gautam @ Pandit vs State Of Mp on 28 July, 2021

10(a). As per the undertaking given by the applicant and as per the spirit echoed in case of Sunita Gandharva (supra), it is hereby directed that applicant shall plant 10 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/ Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. "o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 18 M.Cr.C.No.31747/2021 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time. For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the applicant. The progress reports shall be submitted by the applicant before the trial Court on expiry of every two months for three years.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - A Pathak - Full Document

Manoj Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021

Considering the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, especially long period of custody and the fact that a chance be given to applicant for course correction and to reform himself to purge his misdeeds, if any, as per judgment of this Court in the matter of Sunita Gandharva Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ(Cri.)247, the application deserves to be allowed and therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application but with certain stringent conditions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 20 - A Pathak - Full Document

Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021

4. In the course of argument of appeal before the Single Bench, an objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the accused is also being tried for offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, therefore, he should have filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court rather than filing appeal. It was argued that when the [4] Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 accused is being tried for offences of POCSO Act as well as for offences under the Atrocities Act, such trial should be conducted by the Special Judge notified for trial of the cases registered under POCSO Act, whereas, in the present case, the trial is being conducted by the Special Judge notified for trial of the cases registered under the Atrocities Act. It was therefore argued that the trial against the accused stood vitiated and a direction be issued to transfer this case to the court of Special Judge notified for trial of the cases under the POCSO Act. Reliance was placed on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Sunita Gandharva (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 60 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next