para 41) and State Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate ( 2004) 5 SCC 729.
49. In my view, this argument travel wide off the clear ... present case.
52. In State Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate (Supra ), the learned counsel for the applicant-CBI has heavily relied on observations made
State Rep. By
Inspector of Police v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate (2004 KHC 1886).
The learned Addl.D.G.P. went on to point
Represented by
Inspector of Police & Othersversus N.M.T. Joy Immaculate [(2004) 5
SCC 729]".
That matter was taken up for hearing
Represented by Inspector of Police & Others
versus N.M.T. Joy Immaculate [(2004) 5 SCC 729]".
That matter was taken up for hearing
Inspector of Police and others v. N.M.T.Joy Immaculate] after referring various judgments Their Lordships have held that if the objections raised
Represented
By Inspector of Police & Others versus N.M.T. Joy Immaculate [(2004)
5 SCC 729]", wherein it has been held herein under
Represented
by Inspector of Police & Others -Versus- N.M.T. Joy Immaculate
[(2004) 5 SCC 729]".
However, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing
Represented
by Inspector of Police & Others -Versus- N.M.T. Joy Immaculate
[(2004) 5 SCC 729]".
However, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing
State v. NMT Joy
Immaculate 2004(2) JCC 1097; State of U.P. v. Munesh (2012) 9 SCC 742 ;
" Santosh kumar Singh v. State
matter of
State through Inspector of Police Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate,
2004 Crl.L.J.2515. In para 12 of the said judgment
