Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.22 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs State Of M.P. Through P.S. Inderganj on 8 February, 2000
In view of delineation of facts and law elaborated in a
greater detail herein-above, we hold that the law laid down
in the cases of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs. State
of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43; Rajendra son of Rajaram Pal
vs. State of M.P., 2002(5) MPLJ 301; and Damodar Singh
Chouhan vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138 wherein it
has been held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of the
Code are mandatory in nature and the accused is entitled
for bail, if the trial is not concluded by the Magistrate
within the statutory period and the Magistrate will not have
any discretion to refuse bail is not a good law and the law
laid down in the case of Aasif @ Nakta vs. State of M.P.
(supra) and Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P. (supra) is
approved."
Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Damodar Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2015
In view of delineation of facts and law elaborated in a
greater detail herein-above, we hold that the law laid down
in the cases of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs. State
of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43; Rajendra son of Rajaram Pal
vs. State of M.P., 2002(5) MPLJ 301; and Damodar Singh
Chouhan vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138 wherein it
has been held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of the
Code are mandatory in nature and the accused is entitled
for bail, if the trial is not concluded by the Magistrate
within the statutory period and the Magistrate will not have
any discretion to refuse bail is not a good law and the law
laid down in the case of Aasif @ Nakta vs. State of M.P.
(supra) and Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P. (supra) is
approved."
Rajaram Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2017
In view of delineation of facts and law elaborated in a
greater detail herein-above, we hold that the law laid down
in the cases of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs. State
of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43; Rajendra son of Rajaram Pal
vs. State of M.P., 2002(5) MPLJ 301; and Damodar Singh
Chouhan vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138 wherein it
has been held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of the
Code are mandatory in nature and the accused is entitled
for bail, if the trial is not concluded by the Magistrate
within the statutory period and the Magistrate will not have
any discretion to refuse bail is not a good law and the law
laid down in the case of Aasif @ Nakta vs. State of M.P.
(supra) and Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P. (supra) is
approved."
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Anwar Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2002
17. The D.B. considered the case of Damodar Singh Chouhan vs.
State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138, Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar
Rathore vs. State of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43, Rajendra son of
Rajaram Pal vs. State of M.P. 2002 (5) MPLJ 301, Manoj Agrawal vs.
State of M.P., 2001(1) MPHT 70 and Aasif @ Nakta Vs. State of M.P.,
I.L.R. 2016 M.P. 2391 decided by M.P. High Court and Didar Singh vs.
State of Jharkhand, 2004 SCC Online Jhar 560 decided by Jharkhand
High Court, Anwar Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 SCC Online
Raj 534 decided by Rajasthan High Court. The D.B. said in para 20 :-
Aasif@Nakta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2015
In view of delineation of facts and law elaborated in a
greater detail herein-above, we hold that the law laid down
in the cases of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs. State
of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43; Rajendra son of Rajaram Pal
vs. State of M.P., 2002(5) MPLJ 301; and Damodar Singh
Chouhan vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138 wherein it
has been held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of the
Code are mandatory in nature and the accused is entitled
for bail, if the trial is not concluded by the Magistrate
within the statutory period and the Magistrate will not have
any discretion to refuse bail is not a good law and the law
laid down in the case of Aasif @ Nakta vs. State of M.P.
(supra) and Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P. (supra) is
approved."