Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 64

Statute: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road all types of bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 387Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as wel...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Chhotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 762Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The recovery was made Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5203 of 2024(2) dt.15-02-2024 2/3 from the co-accused, petitioner has no c...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Shila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 286Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10910 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45166 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2021 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.Shila Devi W/O Arvind Yadav R/O Village-...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Manjit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 675Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner has been made accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3761 of 2024(2) dt.12-02-2024 2/3 in this case only because of the co...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 594Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Bindu Bhushan, Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur Zone, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur. 6.Sri Manoj Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga. 7.Sri Subodh Sankar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Madhubani. 8.Sri Dharmendra Kumar, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Suresh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 708Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6493 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== 1.Suresh Yadav Son Of Sugdev Yadav Village-Sijhua, P.S.-Katoriya, District- Banka. 2.Parwa...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 262Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.148 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Munger ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Mandal @ Mukesh Mandal, Son of Raj Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Lal Darwaza, P.S.- Kotwali, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Chandradeo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 517Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6909 of 2022 ====================================================== Chandradeo Mandal, Son of Dukhi Mandal, resident of Village- Khagor, P.S.- Kiul, District- Lakhisarai. ... ......

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 194Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

no. 38 (Old), Holding no. 96 (subsequent), presently part of Holding no. 1; (ii) further for direction to the respondents particularly respondent no. 3, 4 & 7 to abstain from creating unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners in exercising their right to...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 3Next Page →