Raju Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2020
(Raju Narveria Vs. State of M.P. )
clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for
practical purposes in respect of this order.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 353 (0.48 seconds)Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2021
(viii) in future, if the applicant is found to be involved in
such nature of cases or any other similar criminal cases or
4 M.Cr.C.No.17457/2021
(Raju Vs. State of M.P.)
misuse the bail granted by this Court, this bail order shall
stand cancelled automatically.
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.31092/2021
(Raju Vs. The State of M.P.)
(2)
There was no forceful abduction. Thereafter both of them got
married in a temple and have a son aged about eight months. Even in
her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the
prosecutrix has admitted the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted
that in view of outbreak of COVID 19, detention of the applicant in
already congested prison may be detrimental. There is no likelihood
of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he
is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed.
With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and
prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the
allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of
bail is made out.
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2021
04 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20604/2021
(Raju vs. State of M.P.)
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.13125/2020
(Raju Vs. State of M.P.)
In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before
releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be
undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is
having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up
action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be
ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and
shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of
residence.
Smt. Mithlesh @ Bimlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2022
It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant
that applicant is a lady aged about 40 years and she has been
implicated on false pretext and since 26/2/2022, she is in
custody. All material prosecution witnesses in respect of other
accused have been examined and since applicant was arrested
later on, trial so far as applicant is concerned, yet to be
concluded. All material prosecution witnesses have been
examined and they did not support the story of prosecution and
declared hostile, therefore, chance of tampering with evidence /
witness is remote. Since, applicant is a lady and has to take care
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
(2) ( M.Cr.C.No. 18869/2022)
(Smt. Mithlesh alias Vimlesh Vs. State of M.P.)
of family and sufficient period of custody has been suffered,
therefore a chance be given to her for course correction and to
mend her ways to become a better citizen. He also referred order
dated 3/1/2022 in M.Cr.C.No. 63148/2022 in respect of co-
accused Raju Singh Tomar and seeks parity. Applicant
undertakes to cooperate in trial. On these grounds, prayer for
bail is made out.
Nek Singh Kushwah @ Gappe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2022
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, this Court intends to allow this application. I.A.
No.4250/2022 is allowed and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.2517/2022
(Nek Singh Kushwah alias Gappe Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court,
jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of this
appeal and he be released on bail. The appellant is further directed to
remain present before the Registry of this Court on 15.11.2022 and
thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry.
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2020
8. However, the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, is
directed to go through the record carefully as well as the
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.6156 OF 2020
(Raju vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
order passed by this Court dated 15.11.2019 in respect of
co-accused-Ashok in MCRC No.46561/2019, which the
trial Court has used to consider parity in respect of
accused Mukesh and Ramesh and submit a report within
fifteen days to the Principal Registrar, High Court, Indore
Bench, who shall place the same before this Court on
administrative side.
Raju Alias Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2017
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it
is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the
petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand
Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial
Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20506/2017 (Raju vs. State of M.P.)
to the condition that he shall make himself available to the
Police, as and when required during the investigation and
will also remain present before the trial Court as and when
directed in that behalf.
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2020
The prosecution story in short was that the applicant
had misled the complainant by telling him that if the
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.10803 OF 2020
(Raju vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
complainant gives him Rs.70,000/- from the bank, then the
applicant shall give him Rs.1.00 lakh because the
applicant desired the such denomination of notes which
are with complainant and he therefore lured the
complainant in handing over Rs.70,000/- and gave him a
bundle allegedly containing Rs.1.00 lakh. Later on it
transpired that bundles of alleged currency notes which the
applicant had given to complainant were infact not the
currency notes but were pages of a diary which were
passed of as currency notes.