Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.02 seconds)
Akib vs State Of U.P. on 26 October, 2023 cites

Krishna & Anr vs State Of U.P on 21 June, 2007

The CDR details collected by the investigating officer regarding mobile phone of co-accused, Muslim, and deceased have not been certified as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, his case is different from co-accused, Muslim. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.05.2023. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Krishna Vs State(2008) 15 SCC 430 Para15; Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC in support of his case he has submitted that the Apex Court has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively it form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability only the accused committed the alleged offence only then implication of an accused can be justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 13 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Raju @ Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

The CDR details collected by the investigating officer regarding mobile phone of co-accused, Muslim, and deceased have not been certified as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, his case is different from co-accused, Muslim. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.05.2023. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Krishna Vs State(2008) 15 SCC 430 Para15; Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC in support of his case he has submitted that the Apex Court has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively it form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability only the accused committed the alleged offence only then implication of an accused can be justified.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - M R Shah - Full Document

Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010

The CDR details collected by the investigating officer regarding mobile phone of co-accused, Muslim, and deceased have not been certified as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, his case is different from co-accused, Muslim. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.05.2023. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Krishna Vs State(2008) 15 SCC 430 Para15; Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC in support of his case he has submitted that the Apex Court has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively it form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability only the accused committed the alleged offence only then implication of an accused can be justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 492 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Satendra Kumar Antil vs C.B.I. And Another on 1 July, 2021

8. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 17536 - Full Document
1   2 Next