Yudhisthir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2017
In the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court in para-13 has held as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (2.36 seconds)Documents citing
Ashok Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2017
Meera Sonkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2017
A co-ordinate Bench of
this Court at Indore in the case of Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home
Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015, decided on
14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments rendered in
the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal
Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression
âengaged or is to be engagedâ used in Section 5(b)(i)
shows that commission of offence or the abetment of such
offence by the person must have close proximity to the date
on which the order is proposed to be passed under Section
5(b) of the Act.
Bindheshwari Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2018
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of
Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015,
decided on 14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments rendered
in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal
Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression "engaged or is
to be engaged" used in Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission
of offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have
close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be
passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.
Annu Alias Anwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2019
Reference
has been made on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in case
of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. 2009 (4) MPHT 263 (DB).
Jagdish @ Munna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2019
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the case
at Sr. No.2 is concerned, he has already been acquitted in the same,
however the other 08 cases are still pending adjudication hence it
cannot be said that the people of the locality are not coming forward
to depose against him on account of fear generated by the petitioner.
The counsel has further submitted that so far as the cases from Sr.
No.1 to 5 are concerned, they are in respect of the family dispute of
the petitioner and the society at large is not affected so far as these
offences are concerned. The counsel has further submitted that the
learned District Magistrate has not recorded its satisfaction as to the
involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases which has led to
the fear in the mind of the public so as to compel him to be externed
from the District of Hoshangabad. It is further submitted that no
3 W.P. No.1174 of 2019
independent witness has been produced on whose deposition a
satisfaction can be recorded under the Act of 1990. The counsel has
also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. and
others reported in 2009(4) M.P.L.J. 434.
Banti @ Amit Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2017
Commissioner of Police, State of
Maharashtra (supra) as under :"It is true
that the provisions of section 56 make a
serious inroad on personal liberty but such
restraints have to be suffered in the larger
interests of society.
Istfaq Mohd. Alias Chhota Bhaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2018
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of
Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015,
decided on 14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments rendered
in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal
Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression "engaged or is
to be engaged" used in Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission
of offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have
close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be
passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.
Sheikh Aslam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2018
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of
Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015,
decided on 14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments rendered
in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal
Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression "engaged or is
to be engaged" used in Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission
of offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have
6
close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be
passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.
Parvez Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2018
The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in
the case of Meera Sonkar (supra) and also in the case of Ashok
Kumar Patel (supra) are not applicable in the facts of the present
case.
Mukesh Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2018
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of
Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015,
decided on 14-09-2015) has also considered the judgments
rendered in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal
Ragjhuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression "engaged or is
to be engaged" used in Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission of
offence or the abatement of such offence by the person must have
close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be
passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.