Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Naynaben Shantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2019 cites

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010

(i) the applicant is a lady accused; (ii) for the incident which has occurred in January, 2011, FIR in question is filed in April, 2019; thus, there is a gross delay in lodging the FIR; (iii) RCS No.125 of 2018 has been filed by the co-accused against the wife of the complainant before the concerned civil Court; the said proceedings are still pending; (iv) co-accused Rahul @ Narendra Ambadan Gadhvi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.6.2019; it is submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is almost similar; in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 21316 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

(i) the applicant is a lady accused; (ii) for the incident which has occurred in January, 2011, FIR in question is filed in April, 2019; thus, there is a gross delay in lodging the FIR; (iii) RCS No.125 of 2018 has been filed by the co-accused against the wife of the complainant before the concerned civil Court; the said proceedings are still pending; (iv) co-accused Rahul @ Narendra Ambadan Gadhvi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.6.2019; it is submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is almost similar; in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1