Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.93 seconds)
Nihal Singh vs Ut Chandigarh on 27 November, 2025 cites

Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 January, 2012

As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR registered under sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 19:21:42 ::: CRM-M No.65039-2025 -4- ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1499 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Shakuntala Pradhan @ Patra vs State Of Orissa And Another on 27 May, 2015

As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR registered under sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 19:21:42 ::: CRM-M No.65039-2025 -4- ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - B Mohanty - Full Document

Balraj Son Of Chander Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2014

As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR registered under sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 19:21:42 ::: CRM-M No.65039-2025 -4- ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - F D Singh - Full Document

Akhilesh Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2021

As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR registered under sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 19:21:42 ::: CRM-M No.65039-2025 -4- ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H S Gill - Full Document
1