Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 76

Statute: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)

Babloo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Bihar

undefined INSC 675Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 392Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 301Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6504 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2023 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Sahu Son of Bilat Sahu @ Bilat Sah R/o vill - Barmattar, P...

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

undefined INSC 721Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

69% Match

FACTS: Anticipatory bail application in a Section 498A IPC cruelty case. Held: Arrest should not be the default action in offences carrying punishment of less than 7 years. Ratio: Police must comply with Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) notice guidelines before executing arrest....

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

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
Manohar Lal v. State

undefined INSC 206Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

Biharsharif, Nalanda, where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 766 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. aditi/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T...

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

undefined INSC 716Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 268Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 369Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 2Next Page →