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.
Subrato Ghosh. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2010 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge in Parsudih P.S. Case No.188 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.2609 of 2009 was rejected and a prima facie case was found against the petitioner under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(I) (XII) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was called upon to stand charged by the said order.2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant-O.P.No.2 Monika Bishwas by presenting a written report before Parsudih Police Station (East Singhbhum) stated that she was posted as Head Ticket Collector at Jharsuguda Railway Station and she was residing there in Qaurter No.A22/3 Railway Colony, Jharsuguda within the district of Jharsuguda (Orissa). In the year 2...
Ashok Kumar Mahto @ Ashok Mahto. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the case registered under Section 364(A) IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he is not named in the F.I.R; subsequently, his name was introduced on the basis of some secret information; nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession; the allegation of recovery of Rs. 8,000/- from his possession is wholly false and connoted; there was no specific identification to say that it was the incriminating money. 3. The amount was of the petitioner which has been forcibly seized by the police; there is no other cogent material against the petitioner; co-accused Nageshwar Mahto and Wakil Mahto with almost similar allegations and materials against have been granted bail by this Court in B. A. Nos. 8900 & 9340 of 2010 respectively; the petitioner is in custody since October 2010 without any cogent basis; the petitioner is a local permanent resident and there...
Kedar VishwakarmA. Vs. State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10th June, 2003, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Giridih, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, whereby, the application for probate being Probate Case No. 2 of 1996, has been dismissed for default, because of the absence of the lawyer as well as for the reason that the probate duty was not paid by the original applicant, as also the order dated 29th July, 2003, passed by the same very court, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, whereby, the application filed by the applicant for recalling the order dated 10 th June, 2003, has been dismissed.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, who has submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition which is dated 4th July, 2002, it appears in pursuance of the power, vested in the Committee vide Notification dated S.O. No.1207 dated 19th August, 1981, already exemption was given to the pres...
Md. Naushad Alam. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar in P.C.R. No. 399 of 2006 by which cognizance of the offence was taken against him under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-O.P.No.2 claimed to be the wife of petitioner-Naushad Alam, pursuant to a "Nikah" which was performed on 23.04.2002 and after consummation of their marriage two children were born to them, one of them was son and another was daughter. For the last three years, the Complainant O.P.No.2 alleged that the petitioner husband demanded Hero Honda motorcycle to be brought from her parental home and in this connection he subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The matter was informed to her father, who came to the house of the petitioner who tried to pacify the matter and requested him to keep and maintai...
Santosh Kumar NageliA. Vs. Smt. Meera Rani Dutt and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the present petitioner, who is the original defendant, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by Sub Judge-V, Jamshedpur dated 27th June 2009 in Eviction Suit No. 76 of 1993, whereby an application preferred by the original plaintiffs for cancelling the evidence given by defendant witness no. 1, who was examined on the side of the present petitioner, is to be cancelled because before he was cross- examined, he expired. The learned trial court has accepted the application filed by the original plaintiffs and expunged the evidence given by D.W.1, namely, Surendra Kumar Nagelia.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that one Surendra Kumar Nagelia was examined by the present petitioner, who is defendant, in Eviction Suit no. 76 of 1993. The aforesaid witness expired on 26th June 2004 i.e. before cross- examination of the said witne...
Dahari Pandey. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Dahari Pandey is moved by Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy and opposed by Sri Ravi Prakash, learned Additional P.P.2. It is submitted by Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated by the informant who is a police officer in the name that he is a member of syndicate.3. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that there is no company ,partnership firm and/or registered Association or Society which involved in illicit transaction of coal in the district of Dhanbad.4. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad is present in court. He has also not disclosed any such known syndicate existing in the district of Dhanbad which involved in illicit transaction of coal. The criminal antecedent report of petitioner which has been called for in this case, kept at Flag- A, shows no case is pending against the petitioner.5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I al...
Prakash Kumar Pasari and Co. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Mr. Agrawal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has got no power to issue guidelines fixing minimum distance to set up crusher machine from a forest and such power lies only with the Central Government.2. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General, appearing for Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board submitted that in the joint measurement done, pursuant to the orders of this Court, it was found that the crusher of petitioner was at 140 meter from the notified forest area, i.e. much within the restricted area. 3. He also relied on a Division Bench judgement, reported in AIR 2005 Patna-62-Bihar State Pollution Control Board and another v. Hiranand Stone Works and others.4. In reply, Mr. Agrawal submitted that the said judgement is per incurium as it has not taken into consideration the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the power of the Board was not an issue in the said case.5. In my view, the contention of ...
Triloki Nath MishrA. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Triloki Nath Mishra is moved by Sri Jai Shankar Tiwary and opposed by Mr. R.S. Singh , learned Additional P.P.2. It is alleged that petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of complainant but the same has not been en-cashed because the petitioner has requested the bank for not en-cashing the said cheque. Accordingly, the present case filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after seeking instruction from his client submits that petitioner is ready to pay the said amount to the complainant without prejudice to his case.4. Learned Additional P.P. have no objection to the aforesaid submission.5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below by 06.05.2011 and in that event the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioner , above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amoun...
Ajay Tirkey. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of First Information Report registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.125 of 2008 on 04.08.2008 for the alleged offence under Sections 143/147/148/341/323/325/307/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was numbered as G.R.No.2976 of 2008 in the General Register of the Court of C.J.M., Ranchi awaiting police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The prosecution case in short was that a complaint case was lodged before the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Hatia by the complainant A.S.I. R.P.F. Shri R.K.Pandey on the basis of the statement of Shri Hari Pramod, Senior Section Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Hatia under Ranchi Division wherein he had narrated that on 4.08.2008 he along with Shri K.K. Rao, Divisional Engineer, Ranchi, Shri B.M.Rao, Assistant Divisional Engineer (Establishment) Ranchi and Shri Ganesh Prasad, Junior Engineer Grade-I, Hatia went to Solanki More for getting the rai...
Sudhir LakrA. Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Central Bureau of Inv ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 17.9.2010, passed by Shri Pankaj Kumar, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi by which a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in R.C. Case No.14(S)/08-AHD-R was rejected and now the case is pending before the successor court of Shri Radha Mohan Tiwary, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.2. Prosecution story in short was that the case was instituted by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Ranchi by submitting a written report on 28.11.2008, addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), Ranchi, alleging inter alia that a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.75,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda to M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi. It was alleged that sum of Rs.74,92,805/- and Rs.16,59,716/- respectively on the different heads stated above were still outstanding against M/s. Neelam Spices, Ranchi along with interest admissible there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »