Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (3.72 seconds)
Documents citing Indrajit Mallah Son Of Ram Raj Mallah vs State Of U.P. on 7 September, 2005

Ram Raj vs State Of U.P.And Another on 3 August, 2021

Let appellant-applicant Ram Raj be released on bail in Bail Application No. 1252 of 2021 (Ram Raj vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Campierganj, District Gorakhpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Srivastava - Full Document

Jaikam And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2018

He has further invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indrajit Mallah Vs. State of U.P. 2005 (3) JIC, 298 where also it was a recovery on simultaneous disclosure and from an open place. It is therefore submitted that applying the principles even on the touch stone of the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellants the fact of the discovery was an information on the basis whereof the weapons were recovered from the place as described in the recovery memo and this being admissible the same stood proved on the facts of the present case. He therefore submits that since the discovery was substantiated in terms of Section 27 of the Act and is further fortified by corroborative material on record, the recovery can not be disbelieved or discarded.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajkumar Gangwar vs Sri. Venkateshwar Lu I.A.S. Principal ... on 10 November, 2020

and Service Single No. 7361 of 2020 (Ram Raj v. State of U.P.), whereby the Lucknow Bench of this Court has stayed the suspension order with liberty to conclude the departmental enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner argues that on the similar grounds, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit as have been accorded to the other two members.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document

Indrajit vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 1 October, 2019

I have gone through the impugned order. It is recorded in it by the trial court that one application 56 Kha was moved from the side of the accused on 24.09.2014 praying therein that he wanted PW2/victim to be re-summoned for being cross-examined as five questions were required to be asked and another application 61 Kha was moved from his side on 20.3.2015 with the prayer that he wanted to put 10 questions to the said victim for which the victim was prayed to be summoned. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the evidence of the prosecution was closed on 4.10.2013 and the case was fixed in defence evidence on 12.11.2013 but no evidence was extended from the side of the accused rather an application under section 311 Cr.PC has been moved which was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2019. After disposal of the said application, the accused approached High Court by filing Writ Petition NO.37649 of 2014 (Indrajit vs. State of U.P. ), which was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2014 and it was directed therein that if the accused-applicant moves any application the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Thereafter, the accused moved the above two applications 56Kha and 61 Kha but subsequently he has not pressed the application 56 Kha on 24.11.2015 and accordingly the same was dismissed and application 61 Kha was dismissed vide court's order dated 13.1.2016. Thereafter, again the accused applicant moved an application 70Kha and continuously obtained adjournments for its disposal. As regards, the questions which were proposed by the accused-applicant to put to the victim, opinion has been expressed by the trial court that in the cross-examination of the victim, all the answers to the said questions have come on record. And that if any infirmity is left in the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution or from the side of the defence, to fill up the said lacuna, no application can be allowed under section 311 Cr.PC and has further opined that the present application has been moved with a view to delaying the disposal of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next