.....order dated 6.2.2013, passed in wps no. 7548 of 2012 ( shashi mariam toppo & ors vs. the state of jharkhand & ors). it has been submitted that the facts and the points involved in this writ petition are identical to the facts and the points involved in the said case of shashi mariam toppo (supra) and as such this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the said case. learned j.c. to s.c. ii, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has admitted the said position and submitted that this case may be disposed of in terms of the said order passed in wps no. 7548 of 2012 ( shashi mariam toppo & ors vs. the state of jharkhand & ors). considering the above, this i.a. is allowed. the writ petition is being disposed of separately. (narendra nath tiwari, j) rakesh/ in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p.s. no. 1903 o”1. kumudani tiru.2. jacinta tirkey ..petitioners versus the state of jharkhand & ors ..respondents ----- coram:honble mr. justice narendra nath tiwari for the petitioners : mr. pradeep kumar verma, advocate for the respondents : j.c. to s.c. ii --- 02/25-07-2013 the petitioners have prayed for direction on the respondents to issue appointment.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the petitioner. against the said prejudicial confidential report, the petitioner has filed a petition for review of the confidential report for the period 2010-2011 before the chairman, m/s. coal india limited, kolkata as far back as on 29.04.2012, but the same has not been considered and no order has been passed till date. learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that if the petitioner's review petition is still pending, the same shall be considered and disposed of without further delay. considering the said submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the chairman, m/s. coal india limited, kolkata-respondent no.2 to dispose of the petitioner's review petition against the confidential report for the period 2010-2011, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. in view of disposal of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press i.a. no.4046 of 2013. i.a. no.4046 of 2013 is disposed of, as not pressed. ( narendra nath tiwari, j.) s.b.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....itrevealsfromthecomplaintthatthecomplainanthadadvancedloanof rs.2lacstothepetitioner.inordertorepaytheloanamountthepetitionerhad issuedfewchequesbutthosechequesstooddishonoured.itisallegedthatthe petitionerwithhishenchmanhadthreatenedthecomplainantandhencethis case. itissubmittedthatentirecomplaintisconcoctedandrealfactshavebeen suppressedbythecomplainant.evenifentireallegationistakentobetrue,no case under section 384 i.p.c. is made out against the petitioner and other offencesarebailableinnature. learnedcounselappearingforthestateopposedtheprayerforbail. consideringfactsandcircumstances,abovenamedpetitionerisdirected tosurrenderbeforethecourtbelowwithinaperiodofthreeweeksfromtoday andonsuchsurrenderheisdirectedtobereleasedonbailonfurnishingbail bond of rs.10,000/(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amounteachtothesatisfactionofthecourtofsriarvindkumar,learnedj.m. 1st class,bokaroinconnectionwithc.p.caseno.390of2011subjecttothe conditionslaiddownundersection438(2)cr.p.c. (d.n.upadhyay,j.) nkc
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....civilmiscellaneouspetitionwas filedforrestorationoft.ano.45/2006. sinceitwasamatterbetweenthecourtandtheappellantandtheappeal wasnotevenproperlyconstitutedbecauseofseveraldefects,thereisno needtoissuenoticetotherespondent. heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for restorationoft.ano.45/2006. in view of the reasons stated in the order dated 12 th september, 2012, passed in c.m.p no.460/2011 (commissioner of income tax, centralrevenuebuilding,patnavs.md.sayeed,ranchi)andinviewof thefactthatinthepresentpetitionalso,thefactsaresimilartothatof c.m.pno.460/2011,c.m.pno.480/2012isallowedandt.ano.45/2006 restoredtoitsoriginalnumber. list t.a no.45/2006 along with t.a no.9/2006 for orders after threeweeks.meanwhile,revenuemayremoverestofthedefects,except thedefectoflimitation. (prakash tatia, c.j.) (jaya roy, j.) dey
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....application filed by bibhash chandra jha and rekha devi is moved by sri b.k. jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by ms. anita sinha, learned additional pp. for the state. petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant. there is general and omnibus allegation against both petitioners. no specific overt act alleged against them. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, i allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 5th of august 2013 and in the event of his surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of sri s.k. dubey, judicial magistrate, dhanbad in connection with c.p. case no. 134 of 2011, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr. p.c. (prashant kumar, j.) binit
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTinthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi a.b.a.no.2322of2013 md.kalammansoori@baban petitioner versus thestateofjharkhand oppositeparty coram: honblemr.justiced.n.upadhyay forthepetitioner :mr.ramlakhanyadav,advocate forthestate :a.p .p. 04/25.07.2013 petitionerisdirectedtomakecomplainantaso.p.no.2. issuenoticetonewlyaddedo.p.no.2throughregisteredcoverwitha.d. aswellasthroughordinaryprocessforwhichrequisitesetc.mustbefiledwithin oneweek. in the mean time petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with complaintcaseno.263of2012,pendinginthecourtoflearnedciviljudge,sr. div.cumc.j.m.,koderma. (d.n.upadhyay,j.) nkc
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....bail applications and direct petitioners to surrender in the court below on 06.08.2013. on that day, informant is directed to remain physically present in the court below. the learned court below is directed to enlarge petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned sub divisional judicial magistrate, bermo at tenughat, in connection with chandrapura p.s. case no. 16 of 2013 corresponding to g.r. no. 207 of 2013, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr.p.c. the learned court below is further directed to send informant along with petitioners after taking written undertaking from the petitioners that they will not torture or demand dowry from the informant in future. if informant has any grievance in future, she will file an application in the court below for cancellation of bail of petitioners. ( prashant kumar, j.) sunil/
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTinthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi criminalappeal(db)no.973of2012 ashokturi appellant versus thestateofjharkhand respondent coram:hon'blemr.justiced.n.patel :hon'blemr.justiceshreechandrashekhar fortheappellant :mr.arbindkumarchoudhary,advocate fortherespondent :a.p.p. th 6/dated:25 july2013 perd.n.patel,j.1. thisappealisadmitted.2. recordandproceedingsofsessionscaseno.120of2011is called for from the trial court so as to reach to this court to appreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionofsentence.3. weherebydirecttheregistryofthiscourttogetthepaper bookspreparedwithneatlytypedcopiesofthedepositionsofthe prosecution witnesses and other documents as required under rules190and191ofthejharkhandhighcourtrules,2001.4. thematterisadjournedtobelistedon19thaugust,2013. (d.n.patel,j.) (shreechandrashekhar,j.) r.shekhar/amitcp3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....counsel for the state. petitioner is accused in connection with pindrajora ps case no. 79 of 2011 pending in the court of learned addl. sessions judge 2nd, bokaro. there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he caused assault to the deceased (nepal hembrom) on his head by means of axe, as a result of which he died. it is submitted that it is not a case under section 302 ipc; rather the contentions made in the fard beyan would make out offence under section 304 ipc. petitioner is in custody since last two years. learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer. considering direct allegation against the petitioner, i do not feel inclined to grant him bail. accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. however, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial by taking all coercive steps to secure attendance of the witnesses and, if possible, by giving shorter dates, because the petitioner is in jail custody. ambastha/- ( d.n.upadhyay,j.)
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the petitioner is pending before sri d.r. tirkey, judicial magistrate, ranchi. the maximum punishment he can award as per the provisions of cr. p.c. is three years. petitioner is in custody from 31.12.2011. thus, he remained in custody for more than one and half year. accordingly, as per section 436a of the cr.p.c., petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. therefore, i allow this application and direct the court below to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, ranchi in connection with kotwali p.s. case no. 1254 of 2011 ( g.r. no. 6511 of 2011) . ( prashant kumar,j.) sharda/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT