SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 535

SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Ajay Nogare – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Jitendra Sharma for applicant; Amit Raj, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER

1. The applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under section 482 of the CrPC against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.270/2019 whereby the applicant's application filed under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected, wherein the call details of the mobile numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and the other co-accused Monu were sought to be called, as according to the applicant, when the incident took place on 24.3.2019 he was not present on the spot.

2. In the aforesaid application, the CCTV footage of the Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir and Harsiddhi Mandir dated 24.3.2019 between 6 to 7 p.m. has also been sought. The said application of the applicant has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that no reason has been assigned as to why the call details are being sought. So far as the record of the CCTV footage is concerned, it is submitted that the distance from the place of incident i.e., Harsiddhi Mandir to Shankh Dwar, Mahakaal Mandir is hardly at a distance of 200 meters from where the incident took place and it takes only a minute to reach hence there is no need to call for the record of CCTV fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top