Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.03 seconds)
Rohit Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025 cites

Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022

13. The applicant is implicated on information given by co-accused in police custody. The statement under Sec. 23(2) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of co-accused Dinesh son of Dev Singh was recorded on 27.01.2025. Despite receiving this information, no incriminating material was seized by the Investigation Officer showing prima-facie complicity of the applicant in the alleged transaction resulting in the offence punishable u/Ss. 34(2) or 42 of the M.P. Excise Act. Thus, the material available on the case diary, at present, does not reveal prima-facie complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. Sufficient time has elapsed since the Investigation Officer was informed by co-accused with regard to the applicant. Presently, at the most, the applicant is a suspect. If further investigation makes out his complicity in the alleged offence, the applicant may be taken into custody, however, in compliance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of investigation (supra). In view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the interdict contained under Section 59A of the M.P. Excise Act would not apply to present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 131 - Cited by 19037 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

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

13. The applicant is implicated on information given by co-accused in police custody. The statement under Sec. 23(2) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of co-accused Dinesh son of Dev Singh was recorded on 27.01.2025. Despite receiving this information, no incriminating material was seized by the Investigation Officer showing prima-facie complicity of the applicant in the alleged transaction resulting in the offence punishable u/Ss. 34(2) or 42 of the M.P. Excise Act. Thus, the material available on the case diary, at present, does not reveal prima-facie complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. Sufficient time has elapsed since the Investigation Officer was informed by co-accused with regard to the applicant. Presently, at the most, the applicant is a suspect. If further investigation makes out his complicity in the alleged offence, the applicant may be taken into custody, however, in compliance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of investigation (supra). In view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the interdict contained under Section 59A of the M.P. Excise Act would not apply to present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 25720 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next