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.
Madan Lal . Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. The petitioners in both the cases have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the C.B.I to institute a case of kidnapping for ransom, dacoity/robbery and to proceed with its investigation.2. The foundational facts pleaded in the aforesaid two cases for getting such relief are that on 1.8.2007 one Pintu [brother of writ petitioner of W.P.(Cr.) No.338 of 2007] as well as one Chandan Thakur proceeded from Patna to Hazaribagh along with their employer Lallu Kumar [brother of one Mahesh Kumar the writ petitioner of W.P.(Cr) No.55 of 2008] to deliver utensils worth Rs.1 lac. to the dealer. In the early morning at about 4.30 a.m. on 2.8.2007, Lallu Kumar informed his brother Mahesh Kumar that they are about to reach Hazaribagh where they will deliver the utensils to the dealer and then they will return back immediately. Just after half an hour Mahesh Kumar, brother of Lallu Kumar was informed by mobile of L...
Tarun Kumar Dawn. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Tarun Kumar Dawn is moved by Sri R.S. Mazumdar and opposed by Sri. Binod Singh, learned Additional P.P. and Sri. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the complainant.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband and he undertakes that he will keep the complainant as his wife with all respect and dignity.3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that if petitioner give the aforesaid undertaking, then the complainant have no objection in residing with the petitioner.4. In view of the aforesaid submissions raised by the parties, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below positively on 04.05.2011. On that date the complainant is also directed to remain present in the court below and in that event, the court below will grant bail to the petitioner, above named, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the ...
Vineeta Devi. Vs. Bablu Thakur and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 20.4.2007, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of M.P. Case No.256 of 2004, by which the petition filed by the petitioner for her maintenance from the opposite party No.1 Bablu Thakur was rejected.2. Petitioner had filed a petition for initiation of a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the opposite party No.1 Bablu Thakur. She has admitted that she was married to the opposite party No.1 Bablu Thakur as per Hindu rites and customs in the year 2002 after the death of her first husband Lakhan Rai and she also admitted that she was having four children from her first husband. After her marriage with Bablu Thakur after the death of her first husband she went to her matrimonial hom...
Manoj Saw @ Manoj Kumar Barnwal. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Gomia P.S. Case No.163/2010, corresponding to G.R. No.841/2010 for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, vide T.R. No.1164/2010.2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant Supply Inspector in his written report presented before the Gomia police on 4.9.2010 stated that he received secret information that 120 packets of rice, which belonged to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), were stored in the house of one Charo Marandi, resident of Jarkunda Tola of Chiddi Panchayat to be sold in the black market. He passed the information to the Block Development Officer, Gomia and a team was constituted comprising the Block Development Officer, Gomia and the house of Charo Marandi was raided. On se...
Suyash S. Khemka @ Suyash KhemkA. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Suyash S. Khemka @ Suyash Khemka is moved by Sri Jai Prakash and opposed by Sri. V.S. Jha , learned Additional P.P. and Sri Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the complainant.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband and he undertakes that he will keep the complainant as his wife with all respect and dignity.3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that if petitioner give the aforesaid undertaking, then the complainant have no objection in residing with the petitioner.4. In view of the aforesaid submissions raised by the parties, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below positively on 04.05.2011. 5. On that date the complainant is also directed to remain present in the court below and in that event, the court below will grant bail to the petitioner, above named, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amoun...
Ved Prakash VermA. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Heard Sri Delip Jerath and Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy for the petitioners and Sri. Shekhar Sinha and Sri. R.S. Singh, learned Additional P.Ps for the State.2. It is alleged that in connivance with petitioner of ABA No. 48 of 2011, petitioner of another case stolen coal from railway wagons. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that these petitioners unloaded coal from the railway wagons and/or connived with others for committing aforesaid crime. 3. It is further submitted that GRP , Gomoh has no jurisdiction to lodge this case because under the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act 1966 , if any goods stolen from goods train during transit , only RPF has jurisdiction to lodge case. 4. It is further submitted that in fact petitioner of ABA No. 48 of 2011 has been implicated in this case because RPF lodged a case against the informant by name in which cognizance taken against him by the competent court.4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance.5. I allow these...
Sawna Oraon. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for seeking Mandamus to consider his case for promotion to the higher post of the Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer with effect from the date his juniors viz Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna had been promoted.2. In nut-shell, the petitioner's case is that he was joined as Junior Engineer in the year 1987 in the Road Construction Department of the State of Bihar and he was posted as Junior Engineer in the said Department. Since then, he had been working under the State of Bihar. The combined seniority list was prepared in the State of Bihar and it was published in which the petitioner's name figures at serial no.1651 whereas aforesaid two persons namely Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna figures at serial no.1815 and 1816 respectively. 3. It is admitted that in the seniority list, above named two persons were junior to the petitioner. It is alleged that the case of the above named two persons was considered by the resp...
Lacho BhuiyA. Vs. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited and anr.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to immediately and forthwith provide service to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father who died in harness on 11.3.1997.2. And/or for any other order/direction that your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 11.3.1997 and thereafter he moved an application before the respondents seeking his compassionate appointment . The said application has not been disposed of by the respondents and hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.3. The writ petition was contested on the ground that the petitioner crossed the age of 38 years on 11.3.1997 and therefore he cannot be employed in view of clause 9.4.0 (iv) of the NCWA. In Annexures A and B to the counter ...
Bir Singh Bankira @ Birbal Bankira @ Sona Ram BankirA. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-b)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 13 of U.A.P. Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; the allegations are false and baseless; the story of recovery of pistol, automatic foreign pistol, grenades and live cartridges, etc. is also concocted; the petitioner is in custody since April, 2008. 2. There is no satisfactory progress in the trial; only three witnesses were examined in February, 2010 and thereafter there is no progress in the trial; petitioner is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that several incriminating articles including cache of arms and ammunitions were recovered from his possession. 3. He has also got criminal antecedent; the trial is ...
Manoj Sao @ Manoj Sahu. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Both the anticipatory bail applications arose from the same, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. Heard Sri Jaiprakash for the petitioners and Ms. M. Palit , learned Additional P.P. for the State.2. Investigating Officer is present in court in compliance of order dated 18.4.2011. On query, after going through the case diary, Investigating Officer was not able to produce any evidence to show that the rice seized from the tempo of petitioner Manoj Sao @ Manoj Sahu loaded from fair price shop of petitioner Deoki Ram. 3. It appears that Investigating Officer sent a report to C.J.M., Chatra stating that investigation reveals that the occurrence is true but he has not been able to show the basis on which he gave that report. Till now Investigating Officer is not able to establish that the rice seized in this case was allotted to fair price of petitioner Deoki Ram. I.O. has also not made any enquiry or investigation on the claim of Bimal Sao, who filed an application for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »