Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh

Questions Answered by Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh (50+ answers)

Q: What happens if you crash a test drive car india, What is my liability?

I was test driving the vehicle of a renowned company, and the sales advisor asked me to check the engine response, i was driving the car and a dog got in front of it. So i tried to stop the car but it slipped and got damaged, i was told that the car is insured and i will not have to pay any amount if it gets damaged. But the agency is asking me for money and is telling me if i don't pay the amount I'll be sent a legal notice. what happens if you damage a car during a test drive ?

Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh answered
ANY VEHICLE WHEN MOVES OUT OF A FACTORY AND TO THE RETAILING PURPOSES GOT INSURED PRIOR TO ITS MOVEMENT OF OUTCOMING. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF PENALTY. ONLY THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY. NEED NOT TO WORRY BUT THE LEGAL NOTICE HAS TO BE RELPLIED WITH.

Q: How to file a police complaint for threatening , harassment and death threats ?

how to file a case for death threat ?, How to win the case they enter our home started giving abuses and thretning that i will kill u or sail u somewhere

Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh answered
THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO WIN A CASE. HOWEVER MATTER MAY BE REPORTED TO THE LAOCAL POLICE STATION IN RESPCET OF INCIDENT. IF THEY DO NOT REGISTER THE FIR. KINDLY MOVE THE APPROPIRATE COURT TO LODGE THE FIR .

Q: Want to change lawyer but lawyer is not giving NOC , How to change lawyer without NOC ?

Sir I want to change my lawyer but my lawyer is not giving a NOC what should I do ?, can i change advocate without noc ?, please give me right suggestions

Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh answered
FILE AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE COUNSEL WHEREUNDER STATING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING INTERFERENCE OF THE HON'BLE COURT SO ALSO MENTIONING THAT YOU HAVE PAID THE SETTLED FEE OF THE PREVIOUS COUNSEL

Q: How to prove forgery in court ? supreme court judgments on forged signature ?

Have three documents, two with signatures of same person, which are genuine and match. Third document alleged forged signature of person who signed on document one and two mentioned earlier. Prima facie also this signature on doc 3 looks quite different from that on doc 1 and 2. However due to reasons unknown the person who has signed on doc 1 and 2 has declared that the signature on doc 3 is also made by him. My query, is it possible to prove from a handwriting expert which will be accepted in court of law that the signature on doc 3 is not made by the person who made the signature on doc 1 and 2. how to prove forged document in court ?

Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh answered
The opinion of a handwriting expert is a piece of secondary evidence under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The court may or may not rely on the opinion of a writing expert, as it is not conclusive evidence. You may use the expert opinion for cross-examination of the witness who signed the third document to demolish the fact that he had signed the third document. 

Q: When is it best grounds for bail in 302 ?

In ipc 302 , is it ok to surrender now or after 3 month. As one member of family already under police custody. I heared that it is better to surrender after 3 month is that ok ?? When can be apply for bail ?? how to get bail in ipc 302 ?

Advocate Vijay Raghav Singh answered
In Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.[1], this Court, while dealing with an application for bail, has stated that certain factors are to be borne in mind and they are: - "..... (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee[2], this Court, while emphasizing on the exercise of discretionary power generally has to be done in strict compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of this Court, has observed as follows: -"9. among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence;ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;v. character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused;vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated;vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; andviii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."23. The said principles have been reiterated in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another[3].In this context, we may refer with profit to the recent pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy[4] wherein the learned Judges have expressed thus: - "28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/ State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."