Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The petitioner, Laxman Mandal, was named in an FIR for allegedly pelting stones at police officers while they attempted to seize a jute bag containing wine bottles at Lailakh Mamalkha Railway Station. The petition argued that the allegations were vague, general and omnibus, and that the injury …
The applicant, Sonu Raidas, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant dated 7‑Feb‑2017 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway Prayagraj, in connection with a trial under Section 153 of the Railway Act (Case No. …
The petitioner, Rishu Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a railway case (GRP Rail Barh P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the Railway Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner …
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a 2014 case (Chakia P.S. Case No. 151) involving alleged train derailment and multiple serious offences under the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, UAPA, Criminal Law …
The petitioner, Suraj Hadi, was arrested in connection with a railway case alleging possession of fifteen tablets of Lorazepam and Ativan and a mobile phone, and was charged under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and …
The petitioner, Shashi Kant, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case arising from a violent clash at Athmalgola Railway Station involving stone‑pelting, assault and gunfire. The prosecution alleged his involvement in offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the …
The appellants, employed as supervisors in Railway Handicraft Centres, claimed they were railway employees and sought regularisation, pay‑scales and other benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that they were not railway servants because their appointments were on a fixed remuneration …
