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.
Smt. Dipali Das @ Priti Das Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 06/16.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of Section 302 charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. He has further submitted that the victim has committed suicide and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Counsel for the State has submitted that material has come that the petitioner used to torture the victim. Considering the submission made by both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected....
Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 8/ 16.5.2011 Instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Kumar with the prayer for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 14.2.2011, by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi directed for attachment of the salary of the petitioner under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not making payment of ad interim maintenance to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of the main petition except that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards arrears. I find from the perusal of the order dated 14.2.2011, recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi that by the order dated 4.3.2010, petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.3000/- per month each to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being wife and minor daughter total a sum of Rs.6000/- and Rs.5,000/- in lump sum being the litigation cost, but the Principal Judge observed that his order was flouted. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the Government P...
Kaila Sao @ Kailash Sao Vs. Gangadhar Sao
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no eye witness in this case and that petitioners are in jail only on the basis of suspicion and that they are in jail since 27.07.2010. On the other hand, State counsel pointed out that deceased had lodged a case against the petitioners under section 376 IPC and that there was land dispute also and that in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 the eye witnesses- the children and husband of the deceased have specifically said that the petitioners along with others took the deceased forcibly from the house and then she was found dead after 2-3 days.2. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected....
Sumant Kumar Sen. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. D.K.Sinha,J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2001 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No.312 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the petitioner was called upon to stand charged for the alleged offence under Sections 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story in short was that the prosecutrix Tutul Kumari, aged about 15 years presented a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarh within the District of Dumka stating that her father was a hawker who used to visit weekly. The petitioner was having a grocery shop opposite her house where the prosecutrix used to visit the shop for purchasing grocery items. On the previous month of "Baishak" in the year 2000 it was the day of full moon she visited his shop to which the petitioner proposed to marry her. Two days thereafter, the pe...
Dharamvir Bhadoria Vs. Union of India Through Spcbi
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1d) of P.C. Act, 1988, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with R. C. 20A/2009 ( R).2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is a Contractor, was given the construction of road work and the allegation against him is that the petitionercontractor was not authorized to purchase bitumen from the Government Oil Companies. However, without purchasing any bitumen from Indian Oil Company, Gamharia the petitionercontractor submits 37 nos. of bitumen invoices showing purchase of 217.863 MT of packed bitumen. It is further submitted that as per supplementary affidavit at page 21 the C.B.I. has given a finding in their report that 37 invoices were genuine and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.3. On the other hand, learned counsel f...
Saroj Sao Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 143, 341, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Chowka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 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 S.D.J.M. Seraikella in connection with Chouka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 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....
Munir @ Munil Ganjhu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlearned A.P.P. appearing for the State.The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections398/395 of Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatearlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected on13.08.2010, but considering the long detention and also the fact thatfour witnesses out of seven witnesses had already been examined,liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail afterfour months if the trial is not concluded by that time, but theposition is that in the month of November, 2010 on the applicationof the prosecutor, charge was amended and thereby all the witnesseshave now been summoned afresh and in that view of the matterthere would be considerable delay in trial and therefore keeping inview the fact that petitioner is in custody since 31st of July, 2008,petitioner be admitted to bail.3. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,...
Deepak Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andLearned A.P.P. appearing for the State.The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section379 of Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that sincethe petitioner was found in possession of stolen motorcar at PatnaRailway Station, a case was registered under Section 414 IndianPenal Code, in which petitioner has already been granted bail byPatna High Court, but the petitioner has moved for bail before thisCourt as he has been made an accused in a case registered underSection 379 of the Indian Penal Code for theft of the said car, butthere has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner hadhad any role to play in the commission of offence of theft.Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,the above named Petitioner is directed to be released on bail onFurnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/(Ten Thousand) with two Sureties of the like amount each to the satisfacti...
Sita Ram Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the allegation against the petitioners for demand of "Rangdhari" and also assaulting the informant but in the case diary there is no evidence that the petitioners have demanded any "Rangdhari" from the informant. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Shekhar Sinha has submitted that the material has come that they have assaulted the informant and also snatched his wrist watch.2. The criminal antecedent report of the petitioners has come which shows that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Considering all these facts, I direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and if they surrender, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Deoghar in connection with Jasidih P. S. case No. 195 of 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›