27345 2021 34_3_33174_order_07-feb-2022
•
0 likes•88 views
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition and related interlocutory applications. The Court had previously passed an order on January 10th, 2022 protecting the applicant from harassment. However, that order was not formally served on the Superintendent of Police. As a result, a notice was issued to the applicant requiring his attendance. The Court clarified that the applicant remains protected by the previous order and no further steps shall be taken pursuant to the notice. The Court directed the State of Tripura to communicate copies of both the present and previous orders to the Superintendent of Police to ensure compliance and prevent harassment of the applicant. The interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Gauhati hc 482 inherent juris for foreigner order
1) The petitioner, Md. Amir Khan, filed a petition seeking to quash the order that convicted him under the Foreigners Act for illegally residing in India.
2) The trial court had framed charges and the petitioner had pled guilty, receiving a two year prison sentence and fine.
3) The petitioner now claims he is not a foreigner but a citizen of Tripura, India based on birth and school documents. However, he did not provide these documents during the investigation or trial.
4) The high court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the trial court's order since the petitioner pled guilty without presenting any evidence and the documents are produced only after appealing the conviction.
Sc order deshmukh plea
The Supreme Court of India dismissed special leave petitions filed by Anil Deshmukh challenging a Bombay High Court order directing a preliminary inquiry by an independent agency into allegations against Deshmukh, who was formerly the Home Minister of Maharashtra. The Court said the serious nature of the allegations required an independent inquiry and it was not persuaded by the arguments that an inquiry was not needed since Deshmukh had resigned.
July delhi hc order
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
Virendra vs state of up
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
This document summarizes two criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala against judgments from lower courts. The lower courts had found police officers guilty of assaulting a complainant while he was in custody. The police officers argue on appeal that the lower courts erred in not requiring sanction from the state government before prosecuting public servants. The High Court examines the evidence and finds that the injuries occurred while the complainant was in police custody, supporting his allegation that police assaulted him at the police station lockup. Medical evidence also supports the complainant's version of events. The High Court dismisses the criminal revision petitions filed by the police officers.
Punjab har hc march 25 order
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case where he was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law and blackmailing her with photographs and videos of the assault. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that (1) contradictions in the complainant's statements is a matter for trial, and (2) the trial is at an advanced stage. However, the Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and instructed police to investigate further given the complainant's change in position.
Holi bench sc order
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal an order rejecting anticipatory bail. The petitioner is accused of offenses including rape and had applied for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court reviewed documents in the case including the FIR and complainant's statement. The Court found that the petitioner had made a prima facie case for anticipatory bail based on WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and complainant brought before the Court. The Court then directed that if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and must cooperate with the investigation.
Gulfisha bail order
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
Recommended
Gauhati hc 482 inherent juris for foreigner order
1) The petitioner, Md. Amir Khan, filed a petition seeking to quash the order that convicted him under the Foreigners Act for illegally residing in India.
2) The trial court had framed charges and the petitioner had pled guilty, receiving a two year prison sentence and fine.
3) The petitioner now claims he is not a foreigner but a citizen of Tripura, India based on birth and school documents. However, he did not provide these documents during the investigation or trial.
4) The high court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the trial court's order since the petitioner pled guilty without presenting any evidence and the documents are produced only after appealing the conviction.
Sc order deshmukh plea
The Supreme Court of India dismissed special leave petitions filed by Anil Deshmukh challenging a Bombay High Court order directing a preliminary inquiry by an independent agency into allegations against Deshmukh, who was formerly the Home Minister of Maharashtra. The Court said the serious nature of the allegations required an independent inquiry and it was not persuaded by the arguments that an inquiry was not needed since Deshmukh had resigned.
July delhi hc order
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
Virendra vs state of up
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210
This document summarizes two criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala against judgments from lower courts. The lower courts had found police officers guilty of assaulting a complainant while he was in custody. The police officers argue on appeal that the lower courts erred in not requiring sanction from the state government before prosecuting public servants. The High Court examines the evidence and finds that the injuries occurred while the complainant was in police custody, supporting his allegation that police assaulted him at the police station lockup. Medical evidence also supports the complainant's version of events. The High Court dismisses the criminal revision petitions filed by the police officers.
Punjab har hc march 25 order
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case where he was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law and blackmailing her with photographs and videos of the assault. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that (1) contradictions in the complainant's statements is a matter for trial, and (2) the trial is at an advanced stage. However, the Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and instructed police to investigate further given the complainant's change in position.
Holi bench sc order
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal an order rejecting anticipatory bail. The petitioner is accused of offenses including rape and had applied for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the lower courts. The Supreme Court reviewed documents in the case including the FIR and complainant's statement. The Court found that the petitioner had made a prima facie case for anticipatory bail based on WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and complainant brought before the Court. The Court then directed that if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and must cooperate with the investigation.
Gulfisha bail order
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
November 2020 gulfisha order
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
Sc judgement regarding bail in perarivalan vs st. of t.n.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition filed by A.G. Perarivalan. It notes that Perarivalan has been convicted of various terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. After over 32 years of incarceration, the Court granted him bail, citing his good conduct during previous paroles and his acquisition of educational qualifications in prison. However, he must report monthly to a local police station and obtain court permission to leave the state. The legal matters regarding his conviction and a mercy petition will be heard further on a future date.
Aquil husaain order
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
Anticipatory bail order 13 aug-2021
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
Delhi hc sma notice
The court is considering initiating contempt proceedings against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for violating a previous court order. The previous order directed that marriage officers should not send notices to applicants' residences when processing applications under the Special Marriages Act, as this could jeopardize marriage plans or endanger lives. However, the respondent SDM sent notices to the residence of an applicant, in violation of these directions. The court has issued a notice to the SDM to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing justice and disobeying the court.
Delhi riots bail feb 3
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
Preet singh and ors order
The document is a court order regarding an application for bail by Preet Singh, who has been accused of offenses under the IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act related to organizing a gathering without permission. The investigating officer opposed bail, citing video evidence of Singh's presence and the risk of further offenses. However, the court denied bail, noting that while the offenses are bailable, Singh's case differs from a previously bailed accused who was not seen inciting crowds in video clips as Singh was. The court found that further investigation was needed and denied bail at this stage.
Bom hc bail is recruit order
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
Alok bajpai v__state_of_up
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
Sc judgement 27-apr-2021
This document provides a summary of a Supreme Court of India case regarding an appeal against convictions for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The key details are:
1) The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court and High Court for raping a 19-year-old blind Scheduled Caste woman.
2) The Supreme Court affirmed that the offense of rape under Section 376(1) IPC was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on testimony and medical evidence.
3) However, it examined the appellant's argument that the ingredients of the offense under Section 3(2)(v
8284 of 2019 gauhati hc
This document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a petition filed by Rahima Khatun challenging an ex-parte order from the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her an illegal migrant. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration of Rahima Khatun's citizenship status, after hearing from her. It also directed Rahima Khatun to appear before the Superintendent of Police within 15 days to provide information and furnish a bail bond, and not leave the district without permission. The records were then remitted back to the Foreigners Tribunal for further proceedings.
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgment
The document is a court judgment regarding an appeal of a conviction for rape. The key details are:
1) The appellant, Suraj Kasarkar, was convicted of rape and criminal trespassing by a special court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
2) On appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the age of the victim and noted inconsistencies in her testimony.
3) The Court also found the medical evidence did not support forcible intercourse and the possibility of consensual relations could not be ruled out.
4) Consequently, the High Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his conviction due to insufficient evidence to conclusively prove the charges.
Gauhati hc judgement july 15
The petitioner challenged an opinion by a Foreigners Tribunal that held she was a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 24, 1971. The High Court set aside the opinion and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference made to it by the police, which was to determine if the petitioner entered between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. The Tribunal instead ruled she entered after March 25, 1971. The High Court held this was impermissible and sent the matter back for the Tribunal to rule on the actual terms of the reference.
The Appellant Was Charged For An Offence Under Section 16
The appellant was charged with selling adulterated turmeric powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Though he pleaded not guilty, after examination he submitted a written admission of guilt as part of a plea bargain. The magistrate convicted him based on this admission as well as the evidence, sentencing him to one day imprisonment and a fine, less than the statutory minimum. The High Court enhanced the sentence. The Supreme Court remanded the case, noting that plea bargains could lead courts to superficial evaluations, and the appellant's conviction was affected by his admission against the requirements of the Act.
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of UMORU V. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PAGE 1
EDOHOEKET V. INYANG PAGE 25
IGWE V. EZEANOCHIER PAGE 61
Hany babu order dated june 3
The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner Jenny Roweena and the two respondents, the State of Maharashtra and NIA, regarding the medical report of the petitioner's husband Dr. Hany Babu Tharayil. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the report suggested he still required critical care and should be allowed house arrest, the NIA objected stating the report said he was ready for discharge. The court then requested the hospital to further examine the patient and provide an updated report by June 14th. It also allowed the interim order to continue and permitted family visits as per hospital protocol until the next hearing date of June 15th.
Posh order
This document outlines guidelines for protecting the identities and privacy of parties involved in a sexual harassment case. It summarizes:
- The identities of parties will be anonymized in orders and case files to protect privacy.
- Strict protocols are established for filing documents, accessing records, conducting hearings, and releasing information to ensure identities are not disclosed.
- Breach of these anonymity protocols will be considered contempt of court. Guidelines also apply to related proceedings in other courts.
Magistrate order
1. Rajkumar Narayan Tandel was accused of stalking and sexually harassing a woman in S.K. Patil Garden in Mumbai on September 18, 2021.
2. According to the prosecution, Tandel followed the woman in the garden and exposed his genitals to her. When the woman called for help, two witnesses helped restrain Tandel until the police arrived.
3. The court examined five prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, two eyewitnesses, and two police officers. Based on the evidence, the court found Tandel guilty of stalking, outraging the woman's modesty, and committing indecent exposure, and convicted him.
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal filed by Parvinder Kansal against the State of NCT of Delhi. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the criminal appeal based on a signed non-reportable order placed on the file.
Delhi court bail apr 9
1) This document is an order from a court case (State V/s Kasim) regarding an application for bail filed by the accused Kasim.
2) The case involves gunshot injuries to Prince Bansal during riots in Dayalpur on February 25, 2020. Kasim is accused of stone pelting and taking part in the rioting.
3) The court grants bail to Kasim on the grounds of parity with two co-accused persons who had previously been granted bail, and that the investigation is complete and trial will take a long time.
Order_02-Aug-2023.pdfrtfastgaztfgaazrfzrf
2023 (और उससे पहले 2022) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा नफरत फैलाने वाले भाषण पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए जारी किए गए कई दिशानिर्देशों के बावजूद हेट स्पीच की घटनाएं सामने आती रहती हैं। नागरिक नफरत मुक्त 2024 कैसे सुनिश्चित कर सकते हैं?
More Related Content
What's hot
November 2020 gulfisha order
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
Sc judgement regarding bail in perarivalan vs st. of t.n.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition filed by A.G. Perarivalan. It notes that Perarivalan has been convicted of various terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. After over 32 years of incarceration, the Court granted him bail, citing his good conduct during previous paroles and his acquisition of educational qualifications in prison. However, he must report monthly to a local police station and obtain court permission to leave the state. The legal matters regarding his conviction and a mercy petition will be heard further on a future date.
Aquil husaain order
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
Anticipatory bail order 13 aug-2021
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
Delhi hc sma notice
The court is considering initiating contempt proceedings against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for violating a previous court order. The previous order directed that marriage officers should not send notices to applicants' residences when processing applications under the Special Marriages Act, as this could jeopardize marriage plans or endanger lives. However, the respondent SDM sent notices to the residence of an applicant, in violation of these directions. The court has issued a notice to the SDM to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing justice and disobeying the court.
Delhi riots bail feb 3
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
State bank of_india_v__ajay_kumar_sood
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
Preet singh and ors order
The document is a court order regarding an application for bail by Preet Singh, who has been accused of offenses under the IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act related to organizing a gathering without permission. The investigating officer opposed bail, citing video evidence of Singh's presence and the risk of further offenses. However, the court denied bail, noting that while the offenses are bailable, Singh's case differs from a previously bailed accused who was not seen inciting crowds in video clips as Singh was. The court found that further investigation was needed and denied bail at this stage.
Bom hc bail is recruit order
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
Alok bajpai v__state_of_up
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
Sc judgement 27-apr-2021
This document provides a summary of a Supreme Court of India case regarding an appeal against convictions for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The key details are:
1) The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court and High Court for raping a 19-year-old blind Scheduled Caste woman.
2) The Supreme Court affirmed that the offense of rape under Section 376(1) IPC was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on testimony and medical evidence.
3) However, it examined the appellant's argument that the ingredients of the offense under Section 3(2)(v
8284 of 2019 gauhati hc
This document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a petition filed by Rahima Khatun challenging an ex-parte order from the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her an illegal migrant. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration of Rahima Khatun's citizenship status, after hearing from her. It also directed Rahima Khatun to appear before the Superintendent of Police within 15 days to provide information and furnish a bail bond, and not leave the district without permission. The records were then remitted back to the Foreigners Tribunal for further proceedings.
Pocco ipc j pushpa judgment
The document is a court judgment regarding an appeal of a conviction for rape. The key details are:
1) The appellant, Suraj Kasarkar, was convicted of rape and criminal trespassing by a special court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
2) On appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the age of the victim and noted inconsistencies in her testimony.
3) The Court also found the medical evidence did not support forcible intercourse and the possibility of consensual relations could not be ruled out.
4) Consequently, the High Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his conviction due to insufficient evidence to conclusively prove the charges.
Gauhati hc judgement july 15
The petitioner challenged an opinion by a Foreigners Tribunal that held she was a foreigner who entered India illegally after March 24, 1971. The High Court set aside the opinion and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference made to it by the police, which was to determine if the petitioner entered between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. The Tribunal instead ruled she entered after March 25, 1971. The High Court held this was impermissible and sent the matter back for the Tribunal to rule on the actual terms of the reference.
The Appellant Was Charged For An Offence Under Section 16
The appellant was charged with selling adulterated turmeric powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Though he pleaded not guilty, after examination he submitted a written admission of guilt as part of a plea bargain. The magistrate convicted him based on this admission as well as the evidence, sentencing him to one day imprisonment and a fine, less than the statutory minimum. The High Court enhanced the sentence. The Supreme Court remanded the case, noting that plea bargains could lead courts to superficial evaluations, and the appellant's conviction was affected by his admission against the requirements of the Act.
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of UMORU V. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PAGE 1
EDOHOEKET V. INYANG PAGE 25
IGWE V. EZEANOCHIER PAGE 61
Hany babu order dated june 3
The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner Jenny Roweena and the two respondents, the State of Maharashtra and NIA, regarding the medical report of the petitioner's husband Dr. Hany Babu Tharayil. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the report suggested he still required critical care and should be allowed house arrest, the NIA objected stating the report said he was ready for discharge. The court then requested the hospital to further examine the patient and provide an updated report by June 14th. It also allowed the interim order to continue and permitted family visits as per hospital protocol until the next hearing date of June 15th.
Posh order
This document outlines guidelines for protecting the identities and privacy of parties involved in a sexual harassment case. It summarizes:
- The identities of parties will be anonymized in orders and case files to protect privacy.
- Strict protocols are established for filing documents, accessing records, conducting hearings, and releasing information to ensure identities are not disclosed.
- Breach of these anonymity protocols will be considered contempt of court. Guidelines also apply to related proceedings in other courts.
Magistrate order
1. Rajkumar Narayan Tandel was accused of stalking and sexually harassing a woman in S.K. Patil Garden in Mumbai on September 18, 2021.
2. According to the prosecution, Tandel followed the woman in the garden and exposed his genitals to her. When the woman called for help, two witnesses helped restrain Tandel until the police arrived.
3. The court examined five prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, two eyewitnesses, and two police officers. Based on the evidence, the court found Tandel guilty of stalking, outraging the woman's modesty, and committing indecent exposure, and convicted him.
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal filed by Parvinder Kansal against the State of NCT of Delhi. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the criminal appeal based on a signed non-reportable order placed on the file.
What's hot (20)
Sc judgement regarding bail in perarivalan vs st. of t.n.
Sc judgement regarding bail in perarivalan vs st. of t.n.
The Appellant Was Charged For An Offence Under Section 16
The Appellant Was Charged For An Offence Under Section 16
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
Similar to 27345 2021 34_3_33174_order_07-feb-2022
Delhi court bail apr 9
1) This document is an order from a court case (State V/s Kasim) regarding an application for bail filed by the accused Kasim.
2) The case involves gunshot injuries to Prince Bansal during riots in Dayalpur on February 25, 2020. Kasim is accused of stone pelting and taking part in the rioting.
3) The court grants bail to Kasim on the grounds of parity with two co-accused persons who had previously been granted bail, and that the investigation is complete and trial will take a long time.
Order_02-Aug-2023.pdfrtfastgaztfgaazrfzrf
2023 (और उससे पहले 2022) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा नफरत फैलाने वाले भाषण पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए जारी किए गए कई दिशानिर्देशों के बावजूद हेट स्पीच की घटनाएं सामने आती रहती हैं। नागरिक नफरत मुक्त 2024 कैसे सुनिश्चित कर सकते हैं?
Delhi hc bail apr 9 delhi riots
The court heard two bail applications together regarding the same FIR for offenses of murder and rioting. One eyewitness claimed to witness incidents in two different locations over 500 meters apart on the same day. The court directed the state to verify this, and the state reported the locations were actually 350 meters apart. While the veracity of allegations will be determined at trial, the court granted bail to the petitioners since one had been in custody for over a year and trial would take substantial time. Bail was granted on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000 with one surety each of the same amount.
1158_2022_1_11_40959_Order_13-Jan-2023.pdf
1. The contempt petition alleges that there has been no progress in the investigation of an FIR registered 5 months after a hate speech incident on December 19, 2021, despite 8 months having passed.
2. The Additional Solicitor General submits there is no contempt of the Supreme Court's directions.
3. The court directs the Investigating Officer to submit an affidavit within 2 weeks detailing the steps taken in the investigation since the December 2021 incident.
4. The contempt petition will be heard again on January 30, 2023.
Araria case bail order sc aug 4
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Kalyani Badola and another against the State of Bihar regarding their exemption from filing documents and seeking appropriate orders. The petitioners were represented by multiple advocates including Ms. Vrinda Grover and Ms. Shahrukh Alam. The Court issued a notice to the respondents. As an interim order, the Court directed the release of the petitioners on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each until further orders.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
order13-jan-2023.pdf
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Karuna Shankar against the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding her application for premature release that had been pending for over 3 years without justification. The Court directed the Director General of Prisons to ensure Shankar's application is considered and disposed of within a month and to file an affidavit of compliance. It warned of coercive action if further instances of authorities delaying such applications are found.
Preet singh order
1. The court document discusses an application for regular bail filed by Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Epidemic Diseases Act for organizing an event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi without permission.
2. The prosecution argues that Preet Singh made inflammatory speeches and slogans against a particular religion, while the defense claims he is falsely implicated and did not engage in unlawful speech or activities.
3. The court must now determine whether to grant bail to Preet Singh based on the arguments made by the prosecution and defense regarding the evidence in the case and potential risks if he is released.
Embed-6 (1).pdfc p;p;kdk[odk[drskpokpopo
लाइव लॉ ने न्यायमूर्ति गवई के हवाले से यह भी कहा, “राज्य (मध्य प्रदेश) ऐसे मामले में एक अतिरिक्त महाधिवक्ता को पेश करने में क्यों दिलचस्पी ले रहा है?” वह भी कैविएट पर?! जाहिर है, यह उत्पीड़न का मामला लगता है! किसी को उसे (याचिकाकर्ता को) परेशान करने में दिलचस्पी है!
Nodeep kaur bail order
The petitioner, Naudeep Kaur, filed a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered against her and others for offenses related to rioting and assaulting police officers during a protest. [The court notes that] Two FIRs were registered for the same incident, and the petitioner was already granted bail in one case. While the prosecution claimed the protest turned violent, the petitioner argued she was peacefully protesting unpaid wages. Considering the petitioner has been in custody since January and the matter requires further investigation, the court granted her bail, but warned she must not violate any laws or create law and order issues.
anti conversion law petition SC_Order_02-Jan-2023.pdf
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding two writ petitions. It summarizes that in Writ Petition 405/2020, the counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition in order to file a fresh petition challenging the validity of legislation that replaced an Ordinance. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In Writ Petition 428/2020, the petition was listed to be heard on January 16, 2023.
21492202243336535order20-jul-2022-426739.pdf
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Mohammed Zubair regarding several FIRs registered against him in Uttar Pradesh. In its order, the Court granted Zubair interim bail in six FIRs, transferred the investigation of these FIRs from the UP Police to the Delhi Police, and disbanded the SIT investigating the cases. The Court also stated that any new FIRs regarding the same subject matter would also be investigated by the Delhi Police and covered by the interim bail. Zubair was ordered to be released from custody by 6 pm that day upon filing personal release bonds of Rs. 20,000 for each FIR.
Siddique Kappan bail.pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Sidhique Kappan, who had been held in custody since October 2020 related to charges under the UAPA and IT Act. While the Court refrained from commenting on the investigation, it directed that Kappan be released on bail subject to conditions like residing in Delhi and reporting to police weekly. The Court also stipulated he attend trial proceedings and not contact anyone related to the case.
26252_2022_1_27_38090_Order_09-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Sidhique Kappan, who had been held in custody since October 2020 related to charges under the UAPA and IT Act. While the Court refrained from commenting on the investigation, it directed that Kappan be released on bail subject to conditions like residing in Delhi and reporting to police, citing the lengthy custody undergone. The Court also stipulated conditions for Kappan's release on bail and participation in legal proceedings.
Delhi hc nov 12 bail to ddelhi riots accused order
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case where he was charged with offenses under Sections 147/148/149/436/380 IPC.
2. It was noted that the petitioner has weak eyesight (-3.75) and was not wearing glasses in the CCTV footage, unlike when he was arrested. Given his weak vision, it could not be believed that he would have clear vision at night without glasses.
3. Considering the facts and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since April 11, 2020, the court granted the petitioner bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the same amount.
Urgent whistleblower information 14.05.18
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabricating evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. While not examining the merits of the case, the Court noted that Setalvad had been in custody for over 2 months, essential investigation was complete, and the offenses dated back to 2002. It directed that she be released on interim bail on furnishing a cash bond or surety until the High Court considers her regular bail application. The Court clarified this should not be seen as a reflection on the case merits.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad, who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabrication of evidence in a 2002 riot case. While not assessing the merits of the case, the Court noted that essential investigation was complete, her custody was not needed during the pending High Court proceedings, and interim bail was justified given she had been in custody for over 2 months as a female accused. However, conditions were imposed including surrendering her passport until the High Court considers the matter.
Judgment of Supreme court against SLP Civil 9483 of 2013
The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition filed by Om Prakash Poddar against an order of the Delhi High Court regarding his matrimonial appeal. The High Court had admitted the appeal and directed it be listed for hearing in due course. The Supreme Court, after hearing Mr. Poddar, dismissed the special leave petition, finding his grievance against the High Court's refusal of an early hearing to be misconceived and the petition as frivolous litigation.
Mumbai sessions court
1) The court dismissed a criminal revision application filed by Kangana Ranaut challenging a lower court order issuing a process in a criminal defamation complaint filed against her.
2) The lower court properly examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed an investigation under Section 202, satisfying the legal requirements.
3) The court found no errors in the lower court's order regarding its correctness or legality, or any irregularities in the lower court proceedings. The criminal revision application was dismissed.
Similar to 27345 2021 34_3_33174_order_07-feb-2022 (20)
anti conversion law petition SC_Order_02-Jan-2023.pdf
anti conversion law petition SC_Order_02-Jan-2023.pdf
Delhi hc nov 12 bail to ddelhi riots accused order
Delhi hc nov 12 bail to ddelhi riots accused order
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
Judgment of Supreme court against SLP Civil 9483 of 2013
Judgment of Supreme court against SLP Civil 9483 of 2013
Recently uploaded
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional and judicial approach
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptxGodwin Emmanuel Oyedokun MBA MSc PhD FCA FCTI FCNA CFE FFAR
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence Lawyers
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
Learn more on how to obtain the work permit for self-employed persons in Italy at https://immigration-italy.com/selfemployment-work-permit-in-italy/.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
在线办理(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
slide deck : Patenting innovations in 3D printing
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Presentation by Justin Ordoyo
University of the Philippines College of Law
Search Warrants for NH Law Enforcement Officers
Training aid for law enforcement officers related to search warrants, the requirements needed, drafting, and execution of the search warrant.
Incometax Compliance_PF_ ESI- June 2024
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
Pim Betist's presentation about generative AI in the legal sector at Lexpo.com '24
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
USDA grants bolster rural communities, driving growth, sustainability, and prosperity through strategic development initiatives and financial support.
Recently uploaded (20)
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
The Art and Science of Cryptoforensic Investigation: Best Practices and Tools
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Receivership and liquidation Accounts Prof. Oyedokun.pptx
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence Lawyers
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence Lawyers
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
Patenting_Innovations_in_3D_Printing_Prosthetics.pptx
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
Energizing Communities, Fostering Growth, Sustaining Futures
27345 2021 34_3_33174_order_07-feb-2022
- 1. WP(Crl) 470/2021 1 ITEM NO.3 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Criminal) No.470/2021 MUKESH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(C) No.1377/2021 (X) (With appln.(s) for IA No.14869/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/ DIRECTIONS and IA No.14870/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 07-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Ms. Alice Raj, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv. WP 1377/2021 Ms. Sharukh Alam, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv. Ms. Kanika Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Adv. Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2022.02.08 13:02:14 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
- 2. WP(Crl) 470/2021 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IA NOS 14869/2022 & 14870/2022 IN WP (C) NO 1377/2021 1 Ms Sharukh Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that the order dated 10 January 2022 passed by this Court, though reported widely, formally remained to be served on the Superintendent of Police. A notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 20 January 2022 was issued in the name of the mother of the applicant (possibly, according to counsel, because the permanent address of the applicant is of the house which stands in the name of his mother) requiring the attendance of the applicant today. 2 Since the applicant has been protected by the previous order of this Court dated 10 January 2022, no further steps shall be taken in pursuance of the notice under Section 41A pending further orders. 3 Mr Shuvodeep Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura shall communicate both a copy of the present order and the previous order dated 10 January 2022 to the Superintendent of Police to ensure strict compliance and obviate harassment. 4 The Interlocutory Applications are accordingly disposed of. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER