Search Results for "section 18A"

161 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 161 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Applicant in Religious Offences Case — No Prima Facie Case Made Out. Court holds that mere allegations without specific intent to promote enmity or outrage religious feelings do not constitute offences under Sections 153A, 295, 294, 354 IPC.

The applicant, Rajaram Shankar Patwardhan, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Bombay Hi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Caste-Based Intent. The court held that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(w)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not satisfied as the allegations did not show any intention to humiliate the victim on caste grounds.

The appellant, Snehal Aniket Bhosle, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocit...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Case Where No Prima Facie Case Made Out. Bar under Sections 18 and 18A of SC/ST Act Not Attracted as Allegations Did Not Disclose Intent to Humiliate on Ground of Caste in Public View.

The appellants, Papu Ashok Supekar, Umesh Nivrutti Kolhe, Ashok Sakharam Supekar, and Mrs. Lata Ashok Supekar, filed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Decree Against Tenant for Change of User from Residential to Commercial. Tenant's Use of Premises for Storing Cloth Packages and Business Constitutes Change of User Under Rent Control Legislation.

The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendants (tenants) challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Maoist Members in UAP Act Case — Insufficient Evidence of Terrorist Activity. Mere Membership of Banned Organization Without Active Participation Does Not Attract Stringent Bail Restrictions Under Section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The judgment concerns two bail applications filed by Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge (Accused No.4) and Sushma Hemant Ramtekke (Accused No.2) in Sessions Case ...