Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 97

Statute: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 533Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2022 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.Bharat Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav R/o vill - Baijala, P.S. - Jhajha,...

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

undefined INSC 542Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

despite the bar under Section 76 (2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of t...

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

undefined INSC 286Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case No. 257 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506, 3...

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

undefined INSC 897Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:- “7. Having considered t...

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

undefined INSC 869Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

of Sikandra P.S. Case no. 249 of 2022 registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 34, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and one another are said to have struck Sintu Yadav with a tangi, seriously injuring h...

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

undefined INSC 126Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5553 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2022 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Yadav Son of Late Nand Kishor Yadav @ Nanhki Yadav R/o vill ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Shahida Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 826Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

of the petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. The petitioners have filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitio...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Niwas Raut v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 442Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

13.11.1994 at 04.00 PM while informant's brother Anurudh Singh, his neighbours Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajendra Singh went to cut Marhin of paddy crop and when the informant arrived there he saw that wife of Dashrath Raut plucking Gram Sag from his field and thereafter aforesaid three persons went...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

68% Match

FACTS: Challenged Aadhaar biometrics scheme as violating privacy. Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ratio: Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, subject to proportionality tests for state restrictions....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Md. Wahid Ali v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 225Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner has demanded rangdari of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) from the informant and also threatens him of dire consequences if the informant fails to pay the same. 4. ...

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