Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.59 seconds)Priya Indoria vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2023
48. Moreover, the petitioner has been given the liberty to file an
appropriate application seeking grant of bail before the concerned
Court in Nagaland in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka &Ors. (supra).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the
High Court can exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of
action arises within its territorial limits.
Section 153A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hitesh Verma vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 5 November, 2020
14. He submitted that the use of the slur 'chinki' and the naming
of the Scheduled Tribe 'Naga' has been falsely alleged by the
complainant. The subject video, when seen in its entire context
makes it clear that no Scheduled Tribe has been named with a view
to commit any atrocity per se under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
He submitted that mere abusive language or derogatory comments
without reference to caste, in public view or otherwise, does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER BAIL APPLN. 3985/2023&W.P.(CRL) 1350/2024 Page 5 of 19
KAUR
Signing Date:23.10.2024
11:48:44
constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner argued
that by applying this principle, the FIR under the SC/ST Act was
unsustainable, as the alleged post did not meet the legal standards
necessary for invoking the provisions of the Act. (Ref : Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand : (2020) 10 SCC 710)
Ramawatar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2021
25. Lastly, the learned counsel for the State of Nagaland
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of
Madhya Pradesh : (2022) 13 SCC 635, while examining the
scope of inherent powers of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article
142 of the Constitution of India and of the High Courts under
Section 482 of the CrPC in the context of SC/ST Act held that the
Court shall be extremely circumspect in its approach since the
SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity,
humiliation and harassment against the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. She submitted that the complainant
in the present case is merely an informant, and the alleged offence,
therefore, cannot be considered in personam but rather pertains to
broader societal implications.
Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. NCT of
Delhi : (2020) 5 SCC 1, enunciated the approach of 'transit
anticipatory bail' and 'interim protection' that balanced the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution
of India with the fundamental scheme of administration of
criminal justice, as prescribed in the CrPC. The purpose of
interim protection in the form of transit bail is to allow the accused
to approach the appropriate Court that has jurisdiction over the
matter. It cannot be ignored that in an age where the movement
of a citizen is frequent and fast, an offender may apprehend arrest
even with respect to a complaint made by the complainant in one
State, though the offended person may be residing in another
State.