Jharkhand Ranchi Court April 2011 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.
Amit @ Santosh Kumar. Vs. State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when Love Bhatia was kidnapped for ransom and was kept confined in a house at Dhurwa the police on getting tip-off reached over there to recover the victim but there ensued encounter in between the police party and the miscreants and in that shoot out, three miscreants were killed whereas Raju Choubey @ Rajendra Kumar Choubey, Amit @ Santosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Singh were apprehended and the police got the victim released from the captivity. 3. Thereupon, the police came toknow that the other miscreants are going away in a vehicle towards Patna. On such information when one vehicle Raino was intercepted at Barhi this petitioner and also two other persons, namely, Arvind Rai and Rakesh Kumar, who were suspected to be the culprit, were apprehended.4. It was further submitted that those three persons who have been arrested at Dhu...
Mohammad Shabir. Mohammad Shabir. Vs.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.12.2008 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM Dhanbad against the petitioners and others under sections 468/ 471/414 /420/ 467/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 188 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 3348 of 2003 now pending before the court of SDJM Dhanbad.2. The brief fact of the case is that while the opposite party No.2 A.S.I. of police was on patrolling duty, he received tip off that a truck No. BR-2A-3242 was carrying steam coal on the name of a factory which had no existence and thereby, on forged and fabricated documents. On such information he intercepted the truck but the driver fled away and in course of search of the cabin of the truck, he found two Challans vide No. 14 dated 14.11.2003 with destination of the coal to Supreme Industries, ...
Swarn Singh. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 28.9.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in connection with R.C.2 (A)/ 2004(D), by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of his seized articles by the CBI was rejected.2. Prosecution story in short is that on the basis of the information received through some reliable sources, a case was instituted against the petitioner, who was an officer in the Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, alleging that while he was posted and functioning in different capacities under the Income Tax Department had amassed wealth by corrupt and illegal means, disproportionate to the known source of his income, which could not be accounted satisfactorily. Petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court on 9.10.2007. CBI after investigation submitted charge-sheet obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ...
Bharat Mahato. Vs.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 144, 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted bail on 28.7.1992 and since thereafter appeared in the case for number of years till his retirement.2. Learned counsel submitted that the case was instituted against the members of Labourers' Union while they were agitating for some demand; the case was instituted against several named labourers and about 200 unknown; the petitioner continuously appeared while he was in service; after his retirement he was told by the Union Leader that his day-to-day presence is not required and they will inform if his presence is required in the Court.3. When the petitioner did not get any information he himself inquired about the development of the case and found that the case is pending; the petitioner, thereafter, voluntarily surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, ...
Hanif Qureshi. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered for the offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-b)a, 26 (ii)(iii)and 35 of the Arms Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; earlier, he was in possession of the lathe machine, but by virtue of the agreement dated 19.4.2010.3. The petitioner had given his shop premises along with lathe machine on rent to one Md. Tahmir Alam @ Md.Ibrar Ahmad @ Bholu, which would be evident from Annexure-2 of this application; the said tenant-Md. Tahmir Alam has took electricity connection in the said premises and is paying electricity bill, as would be evident from Annexure-3 of this application; petitioner has got no criminal antecedent; he is in custody since October,2010.4. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but has not disputed the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Regard being had to the facts ...
Sudama Singh. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 302, 307, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he is not named in the F.I.R. 2. The petitioner was arrested on suspicion and subsequently said to have confessed before the Police; the petitioner is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding; he is in custody since September 2010.3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that there are materials against the petitioner and he has got five criminal antecedents.4. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and period of custody, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Ba...
Nehru Oraon @ Nehru Lal Bhagat @ Sudip Ji. Vs.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; though the case has been registered under Section 307 I.P.C. nobody has sustained any injury; no case, as such, is made out under Section 307 I.P.C.3. There is no other cogent material against the petitioner; co- accused Ram Lal Oraon and Arjun Ganjhu, with similar allegations, have been granted bail by this Court as have been stated in paragraphs-14 and 15 of the application; case of this petitioner stands on exactly similar footing. 4. He is in custody since November, 2010. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is an accused under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.5. However, she has not controverted the other contentions of learned counsel...
Faruk Khan @ Faruque Khan. Vs. Aftab Khan.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioners are in custody in connection with the case registered under Sections 307/302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case; there is no eye-witness to the occurrence; nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession; there is no other cogent material against the petitioners; the petitioners have been apprehend only on suspicion. 3. There is no basis for the alleged suspicion; there is also absence of motive in the case; the petitioners are in custody since August 2010; the petitioners are the local permanent residents and there is no chance of their absconding. 4. Learned A.P.P opposed the petitioners' prayer for bail and submitted that though there is no eye-witness, there is inculcator statement about the involvement of the petitioners; the petitioners have got criminal antecedents; earlier also they had attempted on the life of Ganga Prasad, one of t...
Fatima Bibi. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. The respondent no.5 purchased a piece of land measuring an area 1.41 acres appertaining to plot no.2 of khata no.1 situated at village-Bana under police station-Bishrampur, district-Palamau vide registered sale deed dated 6.8.1993 which was registered on 15.4.1997. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application for pre- emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daltonganj claiming herself to be adjoining raiyat of the vended plot and therefore, prayer was made to direct the vendor to execute the sale deed in her favour with respect to land in question.2. The said application was dismissed on 25.11.1998 holding therein that the vended plots are in different blocks whereas pre-emptor is adjoining raiyat to only part of the vended plots situated towards southern side and as such, claim of preemption cannot be allowed. That orde...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Vs. M/S Mitsui and Co. ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Since the respondent has put in appearance, the objection of the office in respect of non furnishing of the required information, will not survive. Regarding maintainability of the appeal against the two orders, one passed on 4th February, 2010 and other dated 29th March,2010 , the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to confine his appeal to challenge the order dated 4th February,2010 only. 2. However, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant wants to challenge the order dated 29th March,2010 by preferring separate appeal. However, that might be delayed.3. Learned counsel submitted that the present appeal be treated against the order dated 4th February,2010 only and sofar appeal against the order dated 29th March,2010 is concerned, the appellant may take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties also on the application for condo nation of delay ( I.A. No. 1248 of 2011) filed under Section-5 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »