The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the second bail application of man accused of poaching. The court looked into the facts and circumstances of the case, and contention of the learned counsel of the State, said it is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, Dhyan Singh.
A division bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Vishal Dhagat having heard the Counsel for the petitioner and on the perusal of the record noted that the initial date fixed for the CLAT Examination and submission of form for the same has been relaxed from time to time by the respondent.
The counsel for the respondents contended that the detention order was passed after due application of mind and that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in custody and that provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act have been duly complied with.
In the first writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of rule 9 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules 2008, on the ground that there can't be any restriction of having a practice of a minimum of 15 years as an advocate.
The petition was filed by Sitaram Yadav through Advocate Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay seeking a direction to the state for the implementation of decision published in the extraordinary Gazette notification prescribing transportation charges of vehicle.