Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.58 seconds)
Vijay Mann @ Kapil vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2020 cites

Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2014

• Digvijay Saroha v. State [2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH CRL.M.C. 1625/2020 Page 10 of 22 Signing Date:18.12.2020 14:31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:18.12.2020 15:11:46 • Narender Kumar v. State of Delhi [Bail Application1440/2011 decided by the Delhi High Court on November 1, 2011] • Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal v. State of Maharashtra [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 725] • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr [(2017) 10 SCC 779]
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 11 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar on 9 October, 2017

• Digvijay Saroha v. State [2019 SCC OnLine Del 10324] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH CRL.M.C. 1625/2020 Page 10 of 22 Signing Date:18.12.2020 14:31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:18.12.2020 15:11:46 • Narender Kumar v. State of Delhi [Bail Application1440/2011 decided by the Delhi High Court on November 1, 2011] • Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal v. State of Maharashtra [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 725] • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar & Anr [(2017) 10 SCC 779]
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 120 - L N Rao - Full Document

Dr.Mahipal Singh vs Cbi & Anr. on 21 May, 2012

In Madhukar s/o Babu (supra), the ld. Division Bench of the Bombay High Court referring to Mahipal Singh (supra) observed that the ingredients of the offence i.e. submission of charge sheet and cognizance of offence in more than one case have not been satisfied and had accordingly held that the accused could not be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Act but could be tried under the various provisions of IPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 11 - M Gupta - Full Document

Mohd. Irfan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 23 July, 2018

17. Let us examine the present bail application in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Perusal of the material brought on record reveals involvement of petitioner Digvijay Saroha to the effect that he has been a part of organized crime syndicate and has knowingly facilitated the alleged organized crime syndicate. The MCOCA does not contemplate that the petitioner should have direct role to play as regards the commissionof an organised crime. If there is a nexus of the petitioner who is a member of an, 'organised crime syndicate', or nexus with the offence in the nature of an, 'organised crime' is established, the petitioner will prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(2) of MCOCA. In the present case, the petitioner Digvijay Saroha is alleged to be a member of an organized crime syndicate run by Jitender @ Gogi. There are approximately 27 cases filed against this organized crime syndicate. As per reply filed by the prosecution, there is confessional statement of co-accused Yogesh, which reveals that petitioner Digvijay Saroha is the member of an organized crime syndicate being run by Jitender @ Gogi. It has also come on record that during interrogation petitioner/ accused Digvijay Saroha has disclosed that he is an active member of Jitender @ Gogi Gang and used to collect information regarding members of opposite gang as well suspected targets from whom money can be extorted. During the investigation one witness namely Ms. Nikita Dahiya has deposed that this 'Organised Crime Syndicate' used to collect extortion money from her and accused Digvijay Saroha is one of the associates of this gang, who used to collect protection money from her. Thus, Prima facie, the prosecution has established petitioner's role in conspiring, assisting and managing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH CRL.M.C. 1625/2020 Page 20 of 22 Signing Date:18.12.2020 14:31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:18.12.2020 15:11:46 the crime syndicate. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the offences, he has been charged with. On the contrary, the material brought on record, points to his role in the abetment of the offences committed by the crime syndicate."
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Digvijay Saroha vs State on 23 September, 2019

As observed in Digvijay Saroha (supra), more than 27 cases are pending against the syndicate of which the Petitioner is stated to be a part. In any event, approximately 19 cases have already been mentioned in the proposal which forms the basis of the sanction challenged in the present case. In the opinion of this Court, the said 19 cases pending against the syndicate coupled with the fact that there was sufficient material for the Special Cell authorities to grant sanction in the form of statements which have been recorded, clearly shows that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH CRL.M.C. 1625/2020 Page 21 of 22 Signing Date:18.12.2020 14:31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:18.12.2020 15:11:46 ingredients to proceed under the Act were satisfied
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next