Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The appellant, Priyanka Vinod Bhagat, was arrested for the alleged murder of her husband, accused of colluding with a co-accused due to an alleged illicit relationship and a property dispute. The prosecution relied on statements of the deceased's sister, delayed recordings, and the fact that 28 …
Santosh R. Gharat appealed under Section 14‑A of the SC & ST Act against the special judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC & ST Act. The prosecution alleged that Gharat and a co‑accused abused Scheduled Caste witnesses during a …
The appellant, Sanjay R. Gosavi, appealed against the denial of bail for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging a 15‑day delay in filing the FIR and claiming the allegations were false. The prosecution …
The appellant challenged the Special Court's order granting regular bail to respondents Nos.2 and 3 under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act. The respondents had not been arrested during investigation, and the charge‑sheet had already been filed when they applied for bail. The appellant argued that …
The appellant challenged a Special Court order granting regular bail to respondents Nos.2‑7 under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents had not been arrested during investigation, and the charge‑sheet had already been filed. The appellant argued …
The appellant, Sandip D. Shelar, an advocate, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14-A of the SC & ST Act after being implicated in a FIR alleging assault and caste-based threats against a scheduled caste victim. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused attempted to …
The appellants challenged the order granting them interim relief in a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that the FIR showed the alleged offence was not committed in public view and therefore Section 18's embargo should not apply. The State …
