Devendra Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.19210/2018
(Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.56 seconds)Raja Bhaiya Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2021
In
"Devendra Kumar v. State of M.P" 1992 CRI. L. J. 1730 = 1991 [2] MPJR
338 [M.P.] it has been held that period of temporary bail for few days shall
be excluded in computing said 90 days.
Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2015
Cr. Case No.5892/2014 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of MP & ors)
order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in case of
"Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P., through P.S.,
Piplilyamandi" [2011 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 241] in which the
revisionary Court has held that if there is no evidence against the
applicant, then he can be discharged.
Ramswaroop vs Gokul on 3 December, 2020
He further submits that the
law is very much settled that if a suit is dismissed for non-
compliance of order, then the suit may be restored, as held by this
Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others
Devendra Kumar vs The State Of M.P. on 16 March, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.6428/2021
(Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P. )
2
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh) from
the alleged amount under protest, he is in custody since 20.01.2021,
charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is
allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to
depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh) in fix deposit in any
nationalized bank and on depositing receipt of that F.D. before the
concerning Court and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance
before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by
the trial Court during the pendency of trial.
Mohammad Safi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2015
In the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of M. P.
through P. S. Pipliyamandi reported in 2011 Cr.L.R.
(M.P.) 241, the applicant - Devendra Kumar purchased
new motorcycle in exchange and Rs.37,500/- was paid by
the applicant and the value of old Yamaha motorcycle was
assessed to Rs.11,000/- by the said dealer. Later on, the
said motorcycle which was sold by the applicant to M/s
Kumar Motors Ghatol was sold to one Mangilal and
Mangilal sold it to one Devilal, who had sold it to one
Murtaja Bohra at Neemuch and at the time of offence
under NDPS Act, the Yamaha motorcycle was owned by
Murtaza Bohra and, thus, this Court has held that there is
no material to prove and establish that with the applicant's
knowledge, Yamaha motorcycle was used for commission
of the offence. Thus, the said decision is also
distinguishable and the same will not be applicable in the
present facts and circumstances of the case.