SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Bhanu Pratap Shahi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's defense arguments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on the insufficiency of evidence. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's evaluation of evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. principles of discharging accused. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal standards and requirements for trial proceedings. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. nature of the judicial process in discharge applications. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. role of conspiracy in criminal misconduct. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. distinction of cited case laws and their relevance. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. final conclusion regarding dismissal of the petition. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI.
2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2017, passed in connection with R.C. 11(A)/2009-AHD-R, lodged for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 13 (2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to reject the application filed for discharge of the present petit
Union of India Versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4
Yogesh Versus State of Maharashtra
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Suresh Budharmal Kalani Versus State of Maharashtra
Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Versus Republic of India
Vigilance and Anti Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan and Others
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another
Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan
State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath
State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Narayan and Another
Charges cannot be framed based solely on suspicions; there must be prima facie evidence, not mere presumption, to substantiate allegations against an accused.
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.
The trial judge is expected to exercise judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out, and the duty of the trial court to apply its mind at the time of framing charges and not....
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
(1) Discharge of accused – At stage of consideration of such application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by accused, cannot be looked at all – Court has to proceed with as....
Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law. The essence of the offence of co....
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.