Chhattisgarh Court May 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raju @ Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT60(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.Heard. 1. It is noted that the application is not properly drafted and further that the application before Sessions Court has not been filed. 2. It is noted that in para 2 of the application it has been mentioned that the applicant had applied for his release on bail before the learned Lower Court which was rejected vide order dated 11-12-2001. Document perused. On perusal of the order, it shows that the order dated 11-12-2001 is of High Court. It is not of Lower Court. Counsel for the applicant has to be very careful in drafting and pleading. Since Counsel apologized, proceedings dropped.3. Drafting and pleading has to be accurate. There should be no factual mistake. It is noted that Counsel has taken it very casually. An application containing incorrect averment does not render any assistance. In the instant case, where it is a second bail application, Counsel should have been more careful. Though there is no bar under the Code for filing successive applications, b...
Bhagwati Shankar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4391
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate, for the petitioner.Shri Sarijay K. Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.2. The facts emerged in this petition are to the effect that an accident had taken place and a matador having registration No. M.P. 23-D/9380 was seized for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and challan was filed before the concerned Magistrate. Learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 19-10-2000 imposed a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the offending vehicle on supurdnama. Feeling aggrieved by the imposition of such condition the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No. 51/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 8-12-2000 confirmed the order dt. 19-10-2000. Thereafter the applicant again moved an application under Section 451 of the Cr. P.C. relying on a decision reported in 2001 (1) MP...
Smt. Dhano Devi Vs. Hulas Ram and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ2092; 2002(4)MPHT12(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Vacation J. 1. Heard.2. The facts of the case are that in an accident's claims, an application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimant was allowed but the entire amount has been directed to be deposited in fixed deposit for three years.3. Deceased Devendra Kumar died in an accident on 19-12-1999. The vehicle was insured. The matter remained pending and ultimately the order has been passed for grant of no fault liability. The entire amount has been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimant.4. Provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent. A reading of Section 140 of the Act shows that the amount has to be immediately paid to the claimant. The intention of the legislators is very clear that the legal heirs of the deceased, who died in accident must be paid the amount. Once it is proved that the claimant is legal heir of the deceased, the amount has to be given to her. The direction of the Tribunal...
Radha Mohan Rai and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Vacation J. 1. Heard.2. In the instant case the petitioners have been convicted for thecommission of the offence punishable under Sections 225/34, IPC and havebeen sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years with fine ofRs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one montheach and such conviction attracts the Provision of Section 35 & Section38 (1) (b) of the M.P. Nagarpalika Adhiniyam, 1961 which reads as under:--'Section 35(hh) : No person shall be eligible for election or as aPresident or election or nomination as a Councillor, if he has beenconvicted by Court in India for any offence not falling under clause(h) and sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than twoyears unless a further period of six years has elapsed since his releaseafter under going the sentence.' 'Section 38 (1) (b): If any Councillor becomes subject to any of the disqualification specified in Section 35 and such disqualification is not removable or being...
Rakesh Kumar Mishra and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4394; 2002(4)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Vacation J. 1. Heard finally.2. This is an application filed by the applicants under Section 438, Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail.3. The applicants are accused in Crime No. 71/2001, registered in Police Station, Balco Nagar, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act').4. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge goes to show that prima facie an offence under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act is made out. Section 18 of the Act excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Cr.PC in respect of any case involving arrest of any person accused having committed an offence under this Act.5. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment in the case of Narhari Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in 2001 Cr.LR (MP) 101. In that case, the High Court while granting bail recorded a categorical finding...
Dinkar Rao Waretwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT71(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Vacation J.Heard.1. This application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail.2. It is alleged in the prosecution that the applicant obtained Rs. 90,000/- from the complainant on the pretext that the applicant would provide a Government job to the complainant.3. Now-a-days such offences like providing a job by assuring false promises are quite increasing day by day. The main reason is unemployment which is an advantage being taken and due to this, the poor persons are deprived of.4. The applicant is alleged of obtaining Rs. 90,000/- on the pretext of providing employment affecting the confidence of poor unemployed as well as society. Such offences and cheating the public are becoming a source of livelihood. The allegations levelled against the applicant are that applicant has applied cheap design to cheat the poor unemployed persons who fell prey to such design for getting the job and get cheated by the persons like applicant.5. Having t...
Sunil Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3890; 2003(2)MPHT74(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.1. Anticipating arrest in connection with Crime No. 121/2001 registered at Police Station, Saraswati Nagar, Distt. Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 204, 452, 427, 307 and 302, the present applicant has filed this petition under Section 438, Cr.PC.2. It is a case where on 6-6-2001 at about 9.40 p.m. about 35 persons armed with deadly weapons as emerged from the order of Sessions Judge, Raipur, had assembled near the house of the deceased Ravi Shukla. They attacked the house of Ravi Shukla who at the relevant time was celebrating his birthday along with his kith and kin. In the incident Deepak Jagwani and Nandlal Patel also suffered injuries. The vehicle belonging to the friend of deceased Ravi Shukla was also badly damaged and the house of Ravi Shukla was ransacked and the house hold items kept there were damaged. The learned Sessions Judge on 26-9-2001 rejected the anticipatory application. The present application has been fil...
Manish @ Annu and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Heard.2. The applicants have filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for grant of bail.3. The case is taken up in the first half but at the request of the Counsel for the respondent/State to enable him to keep the responsible Officer present in Court, the case is directed to be taken up in the second half.Later on:4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, City, Bilaspur is present before the Court.5. The prosecution story in short is that on 9-3-2002 marriage of one Akhilesh Singh was to be performed and for the purpose of said marriage one Somesh Soni, the photographer was asked to remain present during the marriage ceremony. However, said Somesh Soni reached the place where the marriage was to be performed at little late. Due to Somesh Soni being late for attending the ceremony, Akhilesh got annoyed and shot a fire at him. It is stated that previously also said Akhilesh Singh was involved in the offence under Section 302, IPC and was on bail.6. The p...
Satish Kumar David and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT22
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. Though Counsel for the State was having the earlier order passed by this Court on 26-3-2002 but has not produced the same. Not only this, none of the Counsel for parties have disclosed that apart from offences under Sections 201, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, offences under Sections 302, 376, 377 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also there. Both Counsel should have submitted the same at the time of arguing the case, but as they did not do so, this Court has taken that this conduct is a serious in nature. Counsel do not appear only for a particular party but they should appear as the officers of the Court. It is their duty to see that before the proceedings start, they should have well prepared to advance their arguments regarding factual matrix of the case.2. The matter had come up for hearing on 4-4-2002. On that day also Ms. Singhai had appeared for the State on advance copy. The case was admitted. It was directed that...
Jamadar Alias Jhadu and ors. Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT5(CG)
ORDERHon'ble Judges: K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard.This application, Misc. Criminal Petition No. 1815/2002 has been filed by the appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.2. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and also convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months on both counts. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 363 read with Section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and also convicted under Sections 366 read with Sections 34 and 376 read with...