The respondent is named as Accused No.10 in the First Information Report dated 30th May, 2017, registered by the Officerincharge of Police Station, NIA, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and Sections 13,16,17,18,20,38,39 and 40 Signature Not Verified of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 20 IST Reason: “the 1967 Act”).
Keeping in mind the special provisions in Section 43D of the 1967 Act and the exposition in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,1 Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. State of Assam and Anr.4, it proceeded to analyse the material on record and observed thus: “7.5 Let me now see whether on the basis of the material on record, allegations against the accused are prima facie made out or not.
578 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7857 of 2018) National Investigation Agency ….. That decision is the subject matter of this appeal filed by the prosecuting agency the appellant herein. The Designated Court opined that there are serious allegations against the respondent Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Accused No.10) of being involved in unlawful acts and terror funding in conspiracy with other accused persons; he had acted as a conduit for transfer of funds received from terrorist Accused No.1 Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, ISI, Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi and also from a source in Dubai, to Hurriyat leaders/secessionists/terrorists; and had helped them in waging war against the Government of India by repeated attacks on security forces and Government establishments and by damaging public property including by burning schools etc.
Appellant(s) : Versus: Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali .... It then noted that the accusation against the respondent (Accused No.10) was of being a part of a larger conspiracy to systematically upturn the establishment to cause secession of J & K from the Union of India.
For very obese patients, “it can get a little uncomfortable to be given” enough fluid to meet the 30-m L/kg goal, “but you can give at least a liter” without having to worry too much, she said.
The patients in the study were treated from 2010 to 2013; normal saline was the most common resuscitation fluid.
Defence counsel is also of no assistance to the accused.
(A6) with accused, is also prima facie borne out from the statement of protected witness PW48.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. The High Court directed release of the respondent on bail subject to certain conditions.
“We will probably [still] see you are not having increased rates of congestive heart or respiratory failure, or needing dialysis,” Dr. The protective effect against dialysis might drop out, “but I am hoping it doesn’t,” he said.
The investigators had no relevant financial disclosures.
The guidelines would have called for these patients to receive 30 m L/kg of crystalloid within 3 hours of presentation, but just 28 patients (17%) met that mark.“The No.
1 reason we weren’t meeting benchmarks was fluid administration,” explained lead investigator Aruna Jahoor, MD, a pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine fellow at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.