Allahabad High Court has held that the Trial Court has, after analysing the entire facts and evidence have concluded that there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused, and thus has rejected the discharge application. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order
Justice C.T. Ravikumar is known among the legal circle for having a firm grasp of precedents and statutory provisions.. We have curated some of his important High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
Bombay High Court remarked that they have come across at least three such cases in last three weeks wherein the statement of the prosecutrix has been totally disbelieved in the grave and a serious offence under Section 376 IPC by not following the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its catena of decisions. It is the second case in this week wherein Police did not adhere to the basic principles of investigation.
The Supreme Court also held that the dictum as laid by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272 is the correct exposition of law and does not require any relook.
Delhi High Court grants bail to accused persons reiterating that, no accused can be indefinitely detained in custody having already undergone 50% of the sentence.
Any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a statutorily sanctioned reason for grant of default bail
“A difference in the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference in their ranks.”
Madras High Court: V Sivagnanam J. directed the State police to add the offences under Sections 417 and 420 Penal
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi: While granting bail to the applicant Pramond Kumar Bhasin, Ajay Gulati, J. observed that the charge sheet
Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma J. categorically held that an allocation of coal cannot possibly be viewed as amounting to ‘proceeds of
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ., (Vacation Bench) reversed the order of the Gujarat High Court,
Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
Supreme Court: In a major development in the Gauri Lankesh murder case, the bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar,
Delhi Court: Vinod Yadav, J., held that Umar Khalid cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in the present case on the
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi CJ., while directing respondents to release the due payments, observed that departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending
Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J., allowing the present petition, quashed the chargesheet filed and made significant observations with respect to
Allahabad High Court: Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. allowed the instant application in terms of compromise and quashed the chargesheet as well as
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and V.G. Arun, JJ. dismissed a petition seeking quashing of disciplinary proceedings on
Uttaranchal High Court: The instant petition was entertained by Ravindra Maithani, J. where the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC applied for quashing
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.M. Shaffique and Ashok Menon, JJ. hearing 6 criminal appeals clubbed together, acquitted five persons