Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 149

Statute: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

72% Match

FACTS: Petitioner's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: Article 21 procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable', not arbitrary or oppressive. Ratio: Expanded Article 21 scope, introducing substantive due process principles into Indian jurisprudence....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Petition seeking action for police failure to register an FIR for kidnapping. Held: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Ratio: No preliminary inquiry is permitted if cognizable offence is disclosed; ...

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

undefined INSC 507Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% 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 →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 338Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 222-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 33(1) / 66 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment 1989) Ac...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Prabhu Dayal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 729Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was added. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that accused persons including this petitioner armed with lathi, danda and pistol assaulted the informant. On hulla, all the accused persons fled away. ...

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

undefined INSC 619Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

506, 379, 365, 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 141 of the Railways Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and other 10-11 unknown accused persons against whom there is an allegation that they have kidnapped the passenger from the runnin...

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

undefined INSC 166Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

available. It is apt and proper to refer the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 178 held as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 6/8 “5. This Court would also refer ...

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

undefined INSC 425Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 124Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

of fact with regard the date of the marriage, the same ought not to be considered while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has always been at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to settle the disputed question of fact. 8. This Court has heard the lea...

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

undefined INSC 162Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

appointment letter and in his place, the respondent no. 8 was selected as Aganwadi Sevika. 4. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 obtained only 58.60 % marks, much less than the petitioner, who obtained 76% marks, nonetheless her case was placed for consideration and, as such,...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →