Lavesh V State - Judgment Search Results
Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. The State Of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Oct-21-2021
a case where any order in terms of Section 438 of the Code can be passed.16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC730 , this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the
Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. Santosh Karnani
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-17-2023
the decisions in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar2, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma3 and Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)4 to urge that anticipatory bail should not be granted to an absconder; xii. The High
The State Of Haryana Vs. Dharamraj
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-29-2023
438, CrPC should not have been entertained, as he was a proclaimed offender. We may note that in Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC730 this Court was categoric against grant of anticipatory bail to a proclaimed
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Srikant Upadhyay Vs. The State Of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Mar-14-2024
after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma2 and Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)3. In Lavesh’s case (supra), this Court held in paragraph 12 thus: - “12. From these
Joeman Vk vs the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-2026
to the present case, wherein it has been held at paragraph No.16 as under: “ 16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief
Susanta Kumar Sahoo @ Bullu Sahoo Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-23-2014
accused had been absconding all along and not cooperating with the investigation. X X X 16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief
Vijay Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
and upon the fulfillment of factors mentioned in Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012(8) SCC 730) has clearly held that an absconder accused or the proclaimed offender is
Date of Decision: July 21, 2014 Vs. State of Punjab and Another
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
bail. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 240.10. In the light of the observations made above, this Court
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu Advocate Vs. State of Punjab
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.7. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC730 Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the scope of granting relief under Section
P.Kunjumohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
Learned counsel for petitioner made a valiant effort to distinguish the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(3)KLT 87.contending that peculiar facts in that case led to the direction that a declared
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free