Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Phool Chand Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2021 cites

Paarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2021

accused Dharmendra. the contraband was not belonging to applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution property has been seized from the applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Gupta but co-accused Dhirendra Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34265/2020 so on the basis of parity benefit of bail should also be given to the present applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is highly diabetic and is not in a position to survive the jail custody. He has filed the doctor prescriptions and other test reports to show the ailment of applicant. Apart from this, he submits that in the identical circumstances this Court recently vide order dated 27.04.2021 has extended the benefit of bail to the concerned accused persons namely in the Signature SAN Not matter of Bablu Barela vs. State of M.P. , in M.Cr.C. No.17147/2021, in Verified Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2021.07.23 17:26:01 IST 2 MCRC-30199-2021 the matter of Premsingh Barela vs. State of M.P. and others in M.Cr.C. No.17144/2021, and in the matter of Paarsingh vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.19029/2021. In the aforesaid cases, the concerned three accused persons were found in possession of 21 Kg Ganja. The concerned applicants were in jail since 08.07.2020 and there is no criminal antecedents against the concerned applicants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Khumsingh Balu Barela vs The State Of M.P. on 21 September, 2017

accused Dharmendra. the contraband was not belonging to applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution property has been seized from the applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Gupta but co-accused Dhirendra Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34265/2020 so on the basis of parity benefit of bail should also be given to the present applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is highly diabetic and is not in a position to survive the jail custody. He has filed the doctor prescriptions and other test reports to show the ailment of applicant. Apart from this, he submits that in the identical circumstances this Court recently vide order dated 27.04.2021 has extended the benefit of bail to the concerned accused persons namely in the Signature SAN Not matter of Bablu Barela vs. State of M.P. , in M.Cr.C. No.17147/2021, in Verified Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2021.07.23 17:26:01 IST 2 MCRC-30199-2021 the matter of Premsingh Barela vs. State of M.P. and others in M.Cr.C. No.17144/2021, and in the matter of Paarsingh vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.19029/2021. In the aforesaid cases, the concerned three accused persons were found in possession of 21 Kg Ganja. The concerned applicants were in jail since 08.07.2020 and there is no criminal antecedents against the concerned applicants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - V Singh - Full Document

Kalyan Chakravarti vs State Of Mp on 24 April, 2021

In the case of Kalyan Chakravarti (supra), the applicant was found in possession of 39 Kg contraband substance and he was taken into custody on 20.02.2020. He was enlarged on bail looking to the period of his custody so also on the ground of present Covid-19 Scenario. Looking to the aforesaid grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail who is in custody since 31/07/2020.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - V Mishra - Full Document
1