Mumbai Goa Court January 2014 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.
Dr. Carla Guiomar Souza Vs. the State of Goa, Through the Public Prose ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15/02/2011 and 25/11/2010 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No.134/2010 and by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 'C' Court at Panaji in Criminal Case No.114/2008/C. The petitioner has also prayed for dropping further proceedings in the matter and discharge her. 3. A charge sheet was filed by the Women Police Station against One Dr. Anthony Lobo and Dr. Carla Guiomar Souza (petitioner), before the Children's Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 354, 509, 506(ii), 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( 'IPC' for short) and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (Children's Act, for short) alleging that since 9 months prior to 05/05/2005 at Machado Cove, Vaiguinim, Valley, Dona Paula, the said accused no. 1, Dr Anthony Lobo wrongfully confined the complainant Ms. Rupa Sharma ...
Kashinath Shetye Vs. the State, Through Its Public Prosecutor and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the complainant who had lodged a complaint before the relevant Magistrate's Court with regard to the offence of theft of electricity meter and other incidental offences against respondent No.2. The Magistrate concerned directed the complaint to be investigated under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A charge-sheet came to be filed on 26/11/2010. Respondent No.2 applied for bail. The learned Magistrate granted bail. The petitioner, who is the brother of the original complainant who has since expired, applied for cancellation of bail before the concerned Sessions Judge. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not cancel the bail. The impugned order gives reasons why the application for cancellation of bail was made and why it has not been allowed. 2. The main contention of the petitioner for cancellation of bail is that the learned Magistrate did not have power to grant bail. The bail was granted in the cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›