Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Aman Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 July, 2017
vi. In Bail Application No. 709 of 2020, Ashish
Kumar alias Aman Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, the
recovery, which has been shown is of the ATM/PTM cards,
which were used by him in the commission of the offence in
Case Crime No. 491 of 2019, two mobiles, four Adhar Cards
and four ATMs and a car. These are the same ATM / PTM
cards, which were shown to have been used in the commission
of the offence registered as Case Crime No. 20 of 2019,
because in Entry-5, (page-19) of annexure-3 to the counter
affidavit, it yet again reflects that it was the same ATM/PTM
cards, which was used by the applicant for the commission of
the offence, and cash of Rs.49,000/- was also recovered.
Anup Kumar ... Applicant (In Jail) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 January, 2019
In Bail Application No. 720 of 2020, Anup
Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, as it would be reflected
from CA-3 to the objection (Page-27), entry-15, he is shown to
8
have used 4 ATM cards, 1 PTM card and a recovery of one
mobile was made from him, and a case of Rs.40,000/- was also
recovered.
1