Jharkhand Court October 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.
Ram Nath Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.389of2009 RamNathMahto ... Petitioner VersusTheStateofJharkhand&others...Respondents; CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner:None th 09:Dated10October,2011 1. Whenthematteriscalledout,counselforthepetitionerisabsent.Neitherthematterismentioned,noranybodyappearedonbehalfofthe petitioner. 2. Hence,thematterisdismissedfordefault.(D.N.Patel,J.)VK...
Kameshwar Upadhyay Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3937 of 2011 Kameshwar Upadhyaya Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & ors. Respondents ----CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate For the State : J.C. to A.G. ----06/10.10.2011. Defects pointed out by the Office are hereby ignored. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner holding the post of Inspector of Police, Godda was transferred to Special Branch, Ranchi, the order of transfer was challenged through this writ application, but during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner joined on the post on which he had been transferred and as such the petitioner is not challenging the order of transfer but that order of transfer has given rise to another problem which the petitioner would like to ventilate. In this regard, it was stated that thoug...
Pravesh Singh and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2128 of 2011 ------1. Pravesh Singh 2. Bablu Singh 3. Dablu YadavVersus -----.... .... ........ ...Petitioners Opp. PartyThe State of Jharkhand CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioners : M/s J. Tripathy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----03 /10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that co-accused persons similarly situated to the petitioners in this case have been granted anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No.3109 of 2009 and A.B.A. No.989 of 2010 by a Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that there isallegation against accused Sahdev Singh that he is the owner of the brick kiln who used to purchase illegal coal and he has been granted anticipatory bail. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, above named petitioners are directed to deposit Rs.2,500/- (Ru...
Sandhu Munda @ Sandhu Munda and Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 469 of 2008 Sandu Munda @ Sandhu Munda & Ors. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors ------CORAM: ..... ..... Respondents AppellantsHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Pandey For the State : J.C to G.P. I Order No. 11 -----Dated 10th October, 2011Perused the office report, which indicates that notice upon respondent no. 11 was sent by registered post, which has neither been returned nor A/D has been received as yet and notice period of 30 days has already expired. In view of the above, it is held that notice on respondent no. 11 is accepted as validly served. This appeal is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents who are not represented by their counsel. In the meantime, both the parties shall maintain status quo, as exists today, with respect to the property in question.(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Alankar/Sudhir/-...
Neyar Alam @ Naiyer Alam and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHICr.M.P.No.1662 of 2007 ----1. Neyar Alam @ Naiyer Alam 2.Sarfraz Alam @ Bholu @ Bhola. ... ..... . Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors....,. ...Petitioners Opp.party.-----CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the State : A.P.P. -----03/10.10.2011 This application has been filed for quashing ofFirst Information Report. It is submitted that from perusal of First Information Report, no offence is made out as against the petitioners because he is not the owner of the godown from where alleged rice and wheat seized. It is submitted that actually petitioner gave said godown to Qamrul Haque on rent who kept seized wheat and rice in the said godown. Accordingly, it is submitted that First Information Report be quashed. Having heard the submissions, through the record. I have gone FirstIt is well settled that aInformation Report cannot be quashed on the basis of defence accused, which he ought to take and prove du...
Baijnath Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6552 of 2011 Baijnath Yadav Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State 2/10.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302/34 ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case no.245 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No 991 of 2007. That there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted his mother by tangi causing her death and the FIR was lodged by the father of the petitioner who is the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected. (H. C. Mishra, J)R.Kumar...
Raghav Das Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6015 of 2011 Raghav Das Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Jasvinder Mazumdar :A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State----3/10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 115 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1739 of 2011. The petitioner was apprehended on 01.06.2011 and from the house of this petitioner 30 kg. of Ammonium Nitrate and fuse wires were recovered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Raghav Das is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisf...
Kavita Devi and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2628 of 2011 Kavita Devi and othersVersus.. ...Petitioners Opposite PartyState of Jharkhand Coram :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr. Ram Lakhan YadavFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011At the out set, it is submitted that petitioners no.3 and 4(Puja Kumari and Suraj Kumar ), are juveniles and therefore learned counsel prays that their names be deleted in terms of the IA No. 1658/2011. Since petitioners no.3 and 4 (Puja Kumari and Suraj Kumar ) are juveniles, this application for anticipatory bail on their behalf is not maintainable. Accordingly, let the names of petitioners no.3 and 4 as aforesaid be deleted. Heard the counsel for the parties. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with complaint case registered under sections 149/323/380/506 section 27 of the Arms Act. It reveals from the complaint that the petitioners had been to the place of the ...
Maneshar Soren @ Muneshwar Soren Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6796 of 2011 ------Maneshar Soren @ Muneshwar Soren @ Mansar Soren. . -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Ms.Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P. -----2/ 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Nala (Bindapathar) P.S case no.32 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.169 of 2010, S.T No.99 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 494, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is allegation against the petitioner to have committed the murder of his wife and the dead body was found in the house of the petitioner. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Maneshar Soren @ Muneshwar Soren @ Mansar Soren is he...
Lagnu Kumar Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.5328of2011 LagnuKumar ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Respondents Versus JharkhandStateElectricityBoardandothers CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: Mr.VishalKumarTiwary FortheRespondents: J.C.ToSauravArun 02/Dated:10October,2011 th 1) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has retiredon31st August,2007as MeterReaderandhehasnotgot hisfinalpensionandfinalgratuity,ratherheisgettingprovisional pension and provisional gratuity. It is also submitted that unnecessarytherespondentsarenotcompletingthedepartmental proceedingwhichhasbeeninitiatedmorethantwoyearsearlier andtherefore,suitabledirectionmaybegiventorespondentNo.2 tofinalizethepensionandgratuitybycompletingthedepartmental proceedingwithinastipulatedperiodoftime. 2) Counselfortherespondentshasnomuchobjectionifsucha directionisgiventorespondentNo.2tocompletethedepartmental proceedingpendingagainstthepetitionerandfinalizehispension andgratuitywithinastipula...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »