J.K.MAHESHWARI
PRAVEEN DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
RAVISHANKAR – Respondent
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC has been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 by ASJ, Barwah. Both were made accused in Crime No. 51/13 registered at Arakshi Kendra, Balvada for an offence under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC whereby deceased Pankaj Dubey, husband of accused Sapna, committed suicide on 12-2-2013 at about 11.00 p.m. The prosecution recovered a suicide note wherein allegations of abetment to commit suicide were levelled, in addition statements were also recorded, however, on such allegations, both the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and co-accused Sapna were implicated in this case. The facts leading to file this case are that both the non-applicants applied under Section 438 of Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail bearing No. 51/2013 (15/2013), which was rejected on 1-4-2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah on merits. On rejection, they have filed bail application under Section 438 of Cr.PC (M.Cr.C. No. 4455/2013) before this Court, which was dismissed, for want of prosecution on having case diary available. Then they have filed 2nd bail application before ASJ, Barwah bearing No. 60/2013, under S
Bimla Devi (Smt) Vs. State of Bihar and Others
Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another
Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P.
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab
Savitri Agarwal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Gurbaksh Singh Sibia Vs. State of Punjab
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.