Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
426,
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
M/S Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& ... vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr on 1 November, 2004
192 and lastly Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10)
2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge
under Section 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper
application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in
the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
Smt. Amrawati Devi And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 January, 2010
In
the meantime the concerned Court may ask the prosecution to obtain
instructions from the Investigating Officer and thereafter dispose of the bail
application at the earliest in accordance with the decision in Amrawati's case.
It will also be open for the Court concerned to release the applicant on interim
bail in an appropriate case on such terms and conditions that the concerned
Court deems fit and proper till the next date of hearing of the bail application,
if the hearing of the case is adjourned or the Court for any reason is not in a
position to finally dispose of the bail application on that day, or some further
instructions are needed.
Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint the
arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided
by the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.,
1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 23 March, 2009
In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and the observations of the Full Bench of this
Court in Amarawati it is provided that if an application is moved before the
competent Magistrate within 3 weeks, a date may be fixed for appearance of
the applicant in about a week thereafter. The applicant may not be arrested
without permission of the Magistrate between the date of moving of the
application for surrender and the date fixed for his appearance in the Court.
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law
laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)