Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.11 seconds)
Ramesh Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2018 cites

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner works in United States of America. After the marriage of the petitioner with the victim, they had gone to Udaypur for honeymoon. On 21.2.2018., the petitioner had left for United States. He does not know as to what went wrong with the victim. He has filed copies of the photographs which reveal that everything was well between the husband and wife during their honeymoon. The victim lived for a very short time in her matrimonial home. Suddenly, they were shocked to receive phone call from father of the victim stating that victim does not want to live with the petitioner. He has also filed documents in order to show that the petitioner had applied for and got U.S. visa for the victim so that she could join the petitioner in U.S.; therefore, inviting attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014)8 SCC 273 and order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in the cases of Sumit Kumar Vs. State of M.P. order dated 28.4.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5117/2016 and order dated 27.7.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10157/2016, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 25720 - Full Document

Rajneesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner works in United States of America. After the marriage of the petitioner with the victim, they had gone to Udaypur for honeymoon. On 21.2.2018., the petitioner had left for United States. He does not know as to what went wrong with the victim. He has filed copies of the photographs which reveal that everything was well between the husband and wife during their honeymoon. The victim lived for a very short time in her matrimonial home. Suddenly, they were shocked to receive phone call from father of the victim stating that victim does not want to live with the petitioner. He has also filed documents in order to show that the petitioner had applied for and got U.S. visa for the victim so that she could join the petitioner in U.S.; therefore, inviting attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014)8 SCC 273 and order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in the cases of Sumit Kumar Vs. State of M.P. order dated 28.4.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5117/2016 and order dated 27.7.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10157/2016, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 222 - Full Document
1