Madhya Pradesh Court June 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Satkar Caterers Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE JUSTICE N.K. MODI & HON'BLE JUSTICE U.C. MAHESHWARI W.P. No.9899 of 2013 M/s. Satkar Caterers and others Vs. Union of India and another. For petitioners :Shri Vaibhav Joglokar with Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocates. For Respondents : Shri Atul Choudhary, Standing Counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 10/06/2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari :1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate writs for the following reliefs:- (a) To hold and declare that the impugned Tender Notice not NIT C/BPL/Catg./157/RRM/Allotment/2013, dated 8.5.2013 and the Tender Document issued thereunder (Annexure P-6) are per se illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void -ab-initio and liable to be quashed and set aside. (b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction thereby commanding the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to wit...
Maiku Dhanuar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4447/2013 Maiku Dhanuar and others versus State of M.P.06/06/2013 Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Arguments heard and case diary perused. This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants. The applicants have been arrested on 31/08/2012 in connection with Forest Crime PRO No.18953/2008 registered by Foresh Department, Range Office-Jaitpur, District Shahdol (MP) and after filing the challan Criminal Case No.1671/2012 has been registered in the Court of C.J.M.Shahdol (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 9, 29, 50 & 51 of Wild Wife (Protection) Act, 1972. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and prays for rejection of this application. As per the allegation made against the applicants, meat of wild pig was seized...
Darbari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4301/2013 (Darbari versus State of M.P.) 06/06/2013 Shri Rajnish Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Case Diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is fiRs.application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506 of IPC registered as Crime No.89/2013 at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni (M.P.).Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/ State has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegation and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that it is a case where bail can be granted, because due to some previous enmity, a false report has been lodged against the applicant after a lapse of period of near about four yeaRs.Looki...
Roshan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4425/2013 Roshan vs State of M.P.06/06/2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Arguments heard and case diary perused. This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 19/12/2012 in connection with Crime No.255/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Raisen (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and prays for rejection of this application. It reveals from perusal of the case diary that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant. Mamta, daughter of the deceased Inder Singh lodged one Gumsudgi report of her father on 04/12/2012. In that report, it was not mentioned that last time her father had gone along with present applicant Roshan, but...
Dilip @ Pramod Patkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5724/2013 Dilip @ Pramod Patkar versus State of M.P.06/06/2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Arguments heard and case diary perused. This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 15/04/2013 in connection with Crime No.55/2013 registered at Police Station Dheemerkheda, District Katni (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 386 of IPC read with Section 16(3).17, 18 of Laingik Apradh Se Balakon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and prays for rejection of this application. It is an admitted fact that relation of victim Ku. Vandana aged about 4 years and accused applicant Dilip is very close. The applicant is real maternal uncle (Mousa) of the victim. It is also clear from the case diary that t...
Rajkumar Singh Gond @ Ravi @ Chhotu Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4444/2013 Rajkumar Singh Gond @ Ravi @ Chhotu Gond vs State of M.P.06/06/2013 Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Arguments heard and case diary perused. This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 16/10/2012 in connection with Crime No.107/2012 registered at Police Station Sidhi, District Shahdol (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g).120-B, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) & 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and prays for rejection of this application. As per the ossification report, the prosecutrix is more than 16 years of age. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the stateme...
Govinda Banjare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5736/2013 Govinda Banjare versus State of M.P.06/06/2013 Ms.Savita Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Arguments heard and case diary perused. This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 04/04/2013 in connection with Crime No.258/2013 registered at Police Station Betul (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A)(II) of IPC. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out because it is an offence committed against a woman and prays for rejection of this application. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that in this case charge-sheet has already been filed and because the applicant is a young boy aged about 20 years and he is in Jail since 04/04/2013, he may be released on bail. In the light of the arguments advanced by b...
Rajesh Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
1 (Rajesh Tiwari and another versus State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.6114/2013 03/06/2013 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Case Diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is fiRs.application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC registered as Crime No.248/2013 at Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal (M.P.).Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegation and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants. Accordingly, the application for antici...
Dharmendra Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
1 (Dharmendra Yadav versus State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.4689/2013 03/06/2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior Advocate with Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Case Diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is fiRs.application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC registered as Crime No.61/2013 at Police Station Seoni-Malwa, District Hoshangabad (M.P.).It is argued on behalf of the State by Shri Namdeo that this bail petition should be rejected, because very heinous offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC has been registered against the applicant, in which, investigation is still pending. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of applicant that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in the light of the statement given by the prosecutrix. From t...
Mahendra Kumar @ Sitaram Chakravarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-2013
1 (Mahendra Kumar @ Sitaram versus State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.4819/2013 03/06/2013 Shri Somnath Kori, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Case Diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is fiRs.application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506 & 34 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act registered as Crime No.1354/2012 at Police Station AJK, District Jabalpur (M.P.).Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegation and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Considering the fact that other eight co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the order of this Court dated 14/03/2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No....
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »