Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 141 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Shweta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 30 March, 2022

Muna Devi @ Mona Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22337 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/3 allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. It is alleged that 5 liters wine is recovered out of which 4 liters wine is recovered from the house of co-accused and 1 liter wine is recovered from the house of petitioners. The names of the petitioners have transpired as the recovery is made from the joint house of the petitioners where other family members also reside. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Umesh Kumar Sah @ Umesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22349 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/3 petitioner. It is alleged that 3.2 liters wine is recovered from the husk of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has transpired as the recovery is made from the husk belonging to joint family of the petitioner. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Ramji Rai @ Ramji Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Chinak Sahni @ Ranjit Sahani vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that 245 liters wine is recovered from a Bhatti of Kailash Sahni. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by local Chowkidar. Except for this, there Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22343 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/2 is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Mannu Yadav @ Abhimanyu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22325 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/3 allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. It is alleged that 21 liters wine is recovered from the bamboo clump of petitioner no. 1. The name of the petitioner no. 1 has transpired as the recovery is made from the bamboo clump belonging to the joint family of the petitioner no. 1 whereas the name of the petitioner no. 2 has transpired on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Bidhayak Yadav @ Devendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. It is alleged that 1638 liters wine is recovered from a tractor. The petitioner is not the owner of the tractor in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22693 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/3 question. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of secret information as per F.I.R. The source and genuineness of the secret information has not been disclosed by the prosecution. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Rishu Kumar @ Raj Kamal vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Vishwkarma Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Mohan Sahni vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2022

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22684 of 2022(2) dt.06-05-2022 2/3 allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. It is alleged that 344.4 liters wine is recovered from an open field situated near dam. The names of the petitioners have come on the basis of secret information as per F.I.R. The source and genuineness of the secret information has not been disclosed by the prosecution. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners in this case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2022 (Sweta Kumari versus State of Bihar).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next