NIRMALJIT KAUR
Malkhan Singh Vishnoi – Appellant
Versus
Director, C. B. I. – Respondent
2. While praying for release of the petitioner on bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a sitting Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly. He is victim of circumstances and being made a scapegoat in the present case. It was contended that the petitioner was neither named in the first report nor in the second report and neither in the complaint. He was not even named in the first charge-sheet. His name was systematically dragged into the case on the basis of the false statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The evidence against the petitioner is hearsay. No eyewitness and documentary evidence has been produced in support of that evidence. The necessary ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. agreement, preparation and meeting of mind are entirely missing in the present
Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ((2012) 4 SCC 134) 4
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2012) SCC 40) 4
State of Kerala vs. Raneef ((2011) 1 SCC 784) 4
Nityanand Rai vs. State of Bihar ((2005) 4 SCC 178 = RLW 2005(2) SC 237) 4
Susanta Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal ((2012) 2 SCC 680) 4
Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashdi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ((2012) 2 SCC 382) 4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.