Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 167

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 110Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% 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 →
Suresh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 401Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 584Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

question of fact with regard the date of the marriage of the petitioner, which otherwise also, can not be determined without taking evidences. 9. So far the post of Aganwadi Sevika is concerned, it is a post created under the scheme and not holding any civil post, thus no prot...

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

undefined INSC 776Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 292 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 411, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is that stolen motorcycl...

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

undefined INSC 293Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 770Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Arpan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 312Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

70% Match

FACTS: Challenged Kerala Land Reforms Act. 13-judge bench reviewed parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Ratio: Basic Structure doctri...

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

undefined INSC 458Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

No. 163 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 394/395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 (1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against four unknown miscreants is that they assaulted the informant and looted a cas...

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