Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Singh Son Of Sri Ganga Ram Singh And ... vs State Of U.P. Through The Principal ... on 7 October, 2005

State vs . Harender Solanki & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 89 on 29 April, 2019

Cr. Reports 152 (SC); Shailender Pratap Singh vs State of UP, 2003 (46) ACC 331 (SC) and Raju Pasi vs State of UP, 2010 (69) ACC 740. It was submitted that the defence through the cross-examination of complainant / PW-1, had succeeded in bringing on record that both the accused and the complainant / deceased side had more than enough opportunity to know each other being political leaders and of the same Parliamentary Constituency. It was submitted that their villages were also adjacent and as such, possibility of the accused being previously known to the complainant cannot be ruled out. It was argued that PW-1 in his cross-
Delhi District Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Shailendra ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 30 March, 2026

4. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 20.01.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) on Bail Application No.65 of 2026 (Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 529 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(1) & 109(1) BNS and under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki refusing bail to appellant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Mathur - Full Document

Madhav Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 April, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued while placing an order dated 12.07.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 9470 of 2022 (Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), copy of which is annexed as annexure 3 to the affidavit that in a similar circumstance another Bench of this Court has set aside the order passed by the Magistrate treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint on the ground that the concerned court has not recorded a finding as to whether application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence or not. It is argued that in present case there is no satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned recorded in the order dated 30.11.2021 that any cognizable offence is made out or not. It is argued that as such both the orders dated 30.11.2021 passed by the trial court and the judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the revisional court are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed and the matter be remanded back to be decided a fresh on merits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document
1