Jharkhand Ranchi Court May 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.
Manoj Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 06/16.05.2011 Instead of Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P., Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. will assist this Court on behalf of the State in this case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.2. In the earlier order, the another Bench of this Court has directed the petitioner to seek instruction as to whether the petitioner is ready to deposit the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 68,458/- or not.3. In view of the said order, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court on or by 30th June, 2011 in the court below, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below, 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 amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Gumla P. S. Case No. 201 of 2010 corresponding to G. R. No. 600 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:-(1) The petitioner will deposit ...
Mumtaz HussaIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 16.05.2011 As prayed by Mr. Sah, put up on 7th June 2011 to enable him to file supplementary affidavit informing this court as to who are the suspect / accused in the case registered vide FIR No. 25 dated 21.02.2010 for the offence under sections 302/394 IPC as also under section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged in police station at Koira, Sundergarh, Orissa....
M/S. Jardine Henderson Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 02/16.05.2011 Heard Mr. Satish Bakshi on behalf of the petitioner. The submission by the learned counsel is that subsequent to retrenchment proceedings, the respondents have attempted to avail some benefit on a number of occasions, despite the matter stood finally decided upto the stage of High Court. The challenge is that the Labour Court was divested of the jurisdiction after the dispute stood resolved by this Court. In view of this, the respondents are liable to be noticed so that they may be given an opportunity of hearing. Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. In view of the submissions made in the instant case, the proceedings commenced before the Labour Court under Section 33(C) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is liable to be stayed till the respondents file their appearance through their counsels.2. The respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner may also file rejoinder to the...
Balram Tudu and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. D.K. Sinha, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Ghatshila in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2005, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against their conviction by the learned SDJM, Ghatshila in C/1 Case No.93 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No.921 of 2005, by which they were held guilty, was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The learned SDJM, Ghatshila held the petitioners (1) Balram Tudu (2) Laso Tudu @ Laxmi Tudu (3) Sunaram Tudu and (4) Krishna Sardar guilty for the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. They were further held guilty for the offence under Sections 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Petitioner No. 5 Chandrai Tudu was also held guilty but no substantive sentence was awarded t...
Abhay Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner who is an accused for offence under Sections 147,148,149,324,307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 14 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 85 of 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per F.I.R. there is no allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the place of occurrence and at the end of the F.I.R. he has been named as conspirator who brought some unknown person who fired upon the accused person. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be surrender before the court below within two weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Ch...
Dilip Kumar Munda Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 324, 354, 34 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code 1908 ( hereinafter refer to as I.P.C.), prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Kanke P S. Case No. 72 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 5060 of 2010.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within 2 weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kanke P. S. Case No. 72 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 5060 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and further conditions that (i) one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court....
Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. D.K. Sinha, J. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings against him, arising out of Gidi P.S. Case No.48/2006, including the order dated 10.6.2010 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.2. Prosecution story in short was that on tip off, the police party raided the Ramgarh Sponge Iron (P) Ltd., Hosir in the night of 7.7.2006 and seized 160 bags of coal being carried on equal number of bicycles. Total weight of the coal carried in the bags were assessed about 10 tonnes. 160 bicycles with 160 coal bags were seized and were made over to the custody of the security guard present at the gate of the Ramgarh Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. against preparation of undertaking after preparation of the seizure list in presence of the independent witnesses. On the self statement of the infor...
Sushma Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The instant application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 8 days delay in filing this Cr. Revision. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken and explanations made therein , delay in filing this Cr. Revision is condoned and the instant application is allowed. I.A. No. 2673 of 2010 stands disposed of.Cr.Rev. No. 1074 of 2010This Cr. Rev shall be heard.2. Call for the L.C.R of C-50/2002 corresponding to Tr. No. 41 of 2010 from the court of Sri. Koushik Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhwa along with the copy of the judgment recorded in Cr.Appeal 16 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Garhwa.3. Put up this case after four weeks.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners surrendered in the court below on 10.5.2011 after the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, for their conviction under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The other convic...
Niranjan Prasad Deo and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. Order No. 11 Dated: 16th of May, 2011. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge and vide order dated 05.05.2008 only notices have been issued on the respondents u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the L.P.A. is delayed by 107 days.2. There are total 51 respondents out of which some of the respondents have been deleted vide order dated 09.02.2009. As per the office report several respondents yet remain unserved, therefore, we looked into the order dated 14th July, 2006 and found that the learned Single Judge has observed that the promotions under challenge were made on 31st December, 1985 and the order of appointment were issued to the respondents in the year 1987-1988-1989 and the writ petition has been preferred after a delay of 16 to 21 years relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Roshan Lal Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C.597 and another in Sajay K.S...
Sadhan Chandra Dey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. It is submitted that a similarly situated co-accused Sri Kant Das was granted bail vide order dated 02.02.2011 passed in B.A. No. 8694 of 2010; and the petitioner is a handicapped person and is a student; and he is in jail for about ten months in this case of Arms Act.2. On the other hand, Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the State, pointed out that the recovery of firearm used in the offence, was made on the basis of the confession of the petitioner and co- accused Nirmal Ravidas; and that the case of the co-accused Sri Kant Das is different from the case of the petitioner as his confession is general in nature; and that this is an off-shoot of the main case vide Nirsa P.S. Case No. 183/2010 under section 302 IPC. In my opinion, case of the petitioner is different from the case of Sri Kant Das and secondly, it appears that on the confession of the petitioner and co-accused Nirmal Ravidas, arms used in the crime was recovered.3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »