Skip to content
Home
Our Firm
Practice Areas
Judgement
Public Info
Our Team
Blogs
FAQs
Careers
Contact us
Home
Our Firm
Practice Areas
Judgement
Public Info
Our Team
Blogs
FAQs
Careers
Contact us
Blogs
Careers
Contact Us
FAQs
Home Page
Judgement
Our Firm
Our Team
Practice Areas
CBI Matters
Criminal Matters
Anticipatory Bail
Bail Matters
Cheque Bounce
Murder
Rape
Cyber Crime
DRI Matters
ED Matters
EOW Matters
Family Matters
Child Custody
Divorce
Domestic Violence
Dowry
Dowry Death
Juvenile Matters
NDPS
PMLA
Property Matters
LAND ACQUISITION
PROPERTY DISPUTES
WILL MATTERS
RERA Matters
White Collar Crime
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Judgements
Our lawyers specialize across industries and legal practice areas
The Hon’ble High court Judge in the matter of “Chhering vs State” had held that merely because the applicant was in regular touch with the co-accused Suraj, who is his son, the same is not sufficient to prima facie attract the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Kalyam Ram vs State” had held that “No independent public witness was associated at the public bus stand, nor were reasons for their absence recorded; further, no videography, photographs, or CCTV footage was collected and the petitioner had no contraband on his possession, as the alleged heroin was recovered from the car’s dickey belonging to co-accused
The Hon’ble High court in the matter of “Md. Rehan Abdullah vs State” had held that Not only the applicant has undergone inordinate incarceration since 24.03.2021 (4 years and 6 months) but even otherwise, given the snail’s pace of the proceedings in the learned Trial Court, it may so happen that before the same concludes, the applicant may end up undergoing the entire sentence without being held guilty
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Shainu R. Hatwar vs NCB” had held that the case of the accused is fully covered in the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Shyam Gupta (Supra) and there exits no grave suspicion of her involvement in the offences in question and the CDRs along with the disclosure statements do not establish the link of the said calls to the recovery in question.
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Shashi Bala vs NCB” had held that the word, when directed towards a woman, is laden with sexual innuendo and directly imputes unchastity to her. It is not a casual term of abuse but one which specifically attacks a woman‘s character by questioning her sexual dignity and portraying her as of loose moral character. Such a term, when used, is bound to humiliate a woman and lower her in the estimation of others by attacking her very status as a woman.
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Suliaman Agha Saihoon vs NCB” had allowed the Applicant to travel to other state for his Graduation with a condition that the passport will remain with Court and the Applicant will inform the Court after coming back
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “WASIM vs State” had granted the bail to the Applicant even after knowing the fact that the Applicant is a habitual offender but the investigation is completed and the trial will take its own time therefore the court deems it proper to grant the bail to the Applicant
The Apex court in the matter of “Ravi Prakash vs State” had granted the bail to the Applicant with alleged recovery of 1kg of Heroin who was in custody for 2.5 months by observing that the trial would take time to conclude and the accused has clean past antecedants
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Shanshah vs State” had allowed the Applicant to be released on bail and held that In a case of intermediary Quantity recovered from co-accused and name of accused surfaced on disclosure, considering that since the chargesheet already filed and only evidence against the accused is disclosure and CDRs, the Court granted Anticipatory bail to the accused.
The Hon’ble High court in the matter of “Rishipal vs State” had granted the bail to the Applicant While observing that faulty investigation coupled with no independent witness and improper photography/videography cast a doubt on story of prosecution, the court granted regular bail to the accused.
The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Paras Bharat vs NCB” had held that the prosecution in not clear to the point that how they had reached to the Applicant even the case of theprosecution is that the Applicant is the mastermind but there is no complete chain of evidences
The Hon’ble High court in the matter of “Shankar Pal vs State” had held that When the accused is in custody for more than two years and have clean antecedants. Considering that the trial would take time, the court observed that the twin conditions under section 37 of act are prime facie satisfied.
Previous
Page
1
Page
2
Page
3
Next