ANAND PATHAK
SUNITA GANDHARVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for cancellation of bail under atrocities act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. evidence for bail violation and ongoing threat to victim. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. accused's arguments against cancellation of bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. state's position and external legal perspectives. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. discussion on legislative intent and reformation in laws. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. important questions framed regarding bail conditions. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. analysis on jurisdiction and precedence of laws. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. emphasis on victim's rights and legislative interpretation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. conclusions on misinterpretation affecting victim's rights. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. arguments about community service as a rehabilitative measure. (Para 31 , 72 , 76) |
| 11. final court decision on non-cancellation of bail. (Para 32 , 82) |
| 12. court directions and disposition of the case. (Para 83 , 84 , 85) |
ORDER : – The instant application under section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant /complainant (hereinafter shall be referred to as “complainant”) for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused (hereinafter shall be referred as “accused”), who wa
Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Amar Singh vs. State of Maharashtra
Babu Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu and ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Moti Ram and ors. vs. State of M. P.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, etc vs. State of Punjab
In RE: Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mandili Yadagiri
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd., vs. State of Bihar
M/s New India Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar
Sarwan Singh and anr. vs. Kasturi Lal
Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs vs. Ranjeet Kumar Saha
State of Bombay and ors. vs. Hospital, Mazdoor Sabha
Hazarilal Gupta vs. Rameshwaar Prasad
Munish Bhasin and ors. vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.