Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Dinesh Kumar vs Government Through C.B.I. on 4 April, 2022 cites

दर (2012) 3 Scc (Cri) Lavesh vs . State (Nct Of on 4 March, 2015

Learned counsel for the non-applicant -CBI has opposed the application by submitting that the applicant had a close association with the main borrower. Non- bailable arrest warrant has been issued against him and, therefore, he is required to appear before the Court and apply for regular bail. He placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma [(2014) 2 SCC 171 and Lavesh Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi)[(2012) 8 SCC 730] and also of this Court passed on 16.06.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.17219/2021 in the case of Rajesh Prajapati Vs. The State of M.P., wherein by placing reliance on the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1996 SC 1042], it was ordered to the accused to appear before the Court and apply for cancellation of warrant and get for regular bail.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 239 - Full Document

Chandra Shekhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2021

Learned counsel for the non-applicant -CBI has opposed the application by submitting that the applicant had a close association with the main borrower. Non- bailable arrest warrant has been issued against him and, therefore, he is required to appear before the Court and apply for regular bail. He placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma [(2014) 2 SCC 171 and Lavesh Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi)[(2012) 8 SCC 730] and also of this Court passed on 16.06.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.17219/2021 in the case of Rajesh Prajapati Vs. The State of M.P., wherein by placing reliance on the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1996 SC 1042], it was ordered to the accused to appear before the Court and apply for cancellation of warrant and get for regular bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 750 - V Mishra - Full Document

Sushila Aggrawal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 1 October, 2018

In the present case, this fact is undisputed that FIR was lodged on 16.01.2018. Learned counsel for the non-applicant-CBI has no where challenged the fact that during investigation, applicant has not cooperated in the investigation and his custodial interrogation or custodial trial is no more required in the matter as in other similar cases, regular bail has been granted to him by different orders. Allegations made against the applicant are similar to that of other similar criminal cases. So far as the maintainability of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, findings rendered in the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh (supra) have been over ruled in the case of Shushila Aggrawal (supra).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next