Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.50 seconds)
Sanjay Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 29 January, 2010 cites

R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 had some scuffle with one Raghav in which Raghav was badly beaten and subsequently he came to Nursing Home of the applicant no.2, who was attending Raghav, where opposite party no.2 along with his associates came and attacked the applicants solely on the ground that the applicant no. 2 was medically treating Raghav. It is also also contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15811 - J C Shah - Full Document

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 applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as summoning order is refused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 16299 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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 Amrawati 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 applicants in about a week thereafter. The applicants 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. 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 applicants 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 9870 - Full Document
1   2 Next