Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (2.25 seconds)
Documents citing Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Ravindra Kumar And Ors on 23 October, 2007

P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

But if the entire case diary is made available to the accused, it may cause serious prejudice to others and even affect the safety and security of those who may have given statements to the police. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of criminal investigation and it is not desirable to make 35 available the entire case diary to the accused. In the instant case, we have noticed that the entire case diary was given to the accused and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on many facts which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case. The learned Sessions Judge should have been careful in seeing that the trial of the case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.” [underlining added] The same position has been reiterated in Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar and others (2008) 1 SCC 632 [Paras 11 to 14], Malkiat Singh and others v. State of Punjab (1991) 4 SCC 341 [Para 11] and other judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 2721 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Geeta Ram Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 October, 2019

In its order in Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019, i.e. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in Balakram vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2017) 7 SCC 668, Sidharth and others vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 12 SCC 545, Naresh Kumar Yadav vs. Ravindra Kumar and others, (2008) 1 SCC 632, Malkiat Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 and Mukund Lal vs. Union of India and another, 1989 Supplementary (1) SCC 622, has observed that it is well settled that the Court can peruse the case diary/materials collected during investigation by the prosecution even before the commencement of the trial inter-alia in circumstances like:-
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020

4. This reference is necessitated, because in the present case, a bench of three judges, on 15th May 2018, noticed conflicting views regarding interpretation of the provision- Section 438. The court noticed, prima facie, that one line of judgments (Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra2; K.L. Verma v. State & Anr3; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr4; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal5; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr 6; HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan7; Satpal Singh v. the State of Punjab8 and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar 9 held that anticipatory bail orders should invariably contain conditions, either with reference to time, or occurrence of an event, such as filing of a charge sheet, in criminal proceedings, that would define its time of operation, after which the individual concerned would have to secure regular bail, under Section 439 Cr. PC. The court also noticed, that on the other hand, the observations in Sibbia did not suggest such an inflexible approach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 15728 - M R Shah - Full Document

Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2020

Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State & Anr; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr ; HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan; Satpal Singh v. the State of Punjab and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar) which lay down such restrictive conditions, or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 October, 2020

29. Further argued that the judgments [Sunita Devi (supra) and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra)] have been overruled by a 5-judge Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 92.12 of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State: (2020) 5 SCC 1 on a different issue, i.e., limiting the grant of anticipatory bail to a particular period of time. Such issue is not in question in the present case. In this view of the matter, the gist of what is recorded cannot be sought to be supplied by the Petitioner being barred under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. Moreover, the High Court Rules framed by this Court in Chapter XII, Rule 1 & Rule 3 recorded as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - S K Kait - Full Document

Deepti Bahal vs State Of U.P. on 5 January, 2021

Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State, Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P., HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan; Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar) which lay down such restrictive conditions, or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled."
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asif Faruk Kadawala vs The State By on 20 April, 2021

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar and Others decided on 23.10.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.1462/2007, and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.23 and 24, with regard to, the Court has to give a definite finding about the prejudice or otherwise. Even the supervision notes cannot be utilized by the prosecution as a piece of material or evidence against the accused.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Shri Phos Muskor vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 28 May, 2021

21. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that on perusal of the application of the Petitioners, it is seen that the copy of the FIR was annexed with the application which on scrutiny also contained the noting 7 of the Officer Incharge, Nartiang PS and endorsement of the IO, which according to the learned Advocate General is privileged information and could not have been given to the Petitioners and as such, the fact that the Petitioners have procured the said document can only mean that they are privy to the case dairy which is not permissible in law and for such an act, serious note may be taken by this Court. The case of "Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar & Ors" (2008)1 SCC 632 at paras 10 to 14 and "P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement" (2019) 9 SCC 24 at paras 50-56 was referred to in this regard.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - W Diengdoh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next