Search Results for "Investigation Delay"

3491 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3491 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Outraging Modesty Case Due to Inordinate Delay and Lack of Credible Evidence. Complaint filed after 8 months without explanation for delay and with contradictory statements leads to quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner, Dr. Prakash Kanhayalal Kankaria, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking qua...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Examines Default Bail Plea Against Custody Extension Under Organised Crime Act. Statutory Bail Application Ignored; Extension Sought Beyond 90 Days Violates Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Fundamental Rights.

The petitioner, an accused in a murder case under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, filed a writ petition challenging the order of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Default Bail to Accused in MPID Act Case Due to Chargesheet Not Taken Cognizance Within 90 Days. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues when the chargesheet is not taken cognizance within the prescribed period, even if physically filed earlier.

The applicant, Wasudeo Shrawan Kamble, was arrested on 13 July 2020 in connection with Crime No. 427/2020 registered at Police Station Ballarshah, Dis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Due to Unexplained Delay in Execution and Consideration of Representation. Delay of Over Five Months in Executing Detention Order and Three Months in Considering Representation Violates Article 22(5) of Constitution and Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act.

The petitioner, a friend of the detenu Mohd. Kunhi Kallattra, challenged a detention order dated 28.2.2002 issued by the Secretary (Preventive Detenti...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Default Bail in POCSO Case Due to Non-Completion of Investigation Within 60 Days. Petitioner Entitled to Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC as Charge Sheet Filed After Expiry of 60 Days from First Remand.

The petitioner, Moulali, was arrested on 01.12.2024 in connection with offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Default Bail in UAPA Case: Exclusive Jurisdiction of Special Court for Extension of Investigation Period. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues upon expiry of 90 days and is not defeated by subsequent filing of charge sheet if application was made before filing.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Bikramjit Singh, who was arrested in connection with a grenade attack at a Nirankari Bhawan in Amritsar on 18....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Drug Manufacturer in NSQ Case Due to Prejudicial Delay in Testing. Delay of 20 Months in Analysis of Drug Sample Violated Right to Challenge Government Analyst's Report Under Section 25(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by M/s Zim Laboratories Ltd. and its officers (the manufact...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Further Investigation Application in Death Case. Trial Court's Discretion Upheld as Applications Were Filed After Trial Commenced and Key Witnesses Examined.

The petitioner, Rabia Khan, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Special Ju...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Criminal Writ Petition Challenging Order Allowing Additional Statements at Pre-Charge Stage. Production of Additional Statements Under Section 173(8) CrPC Without Notice to Accused and Without Opportunity to Cross-Examine Violates Fair Trial Rights.

The petitioners, original accused in Sessions Case No.644 of 1996, challenged an order dated 16th October 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge...