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.
Lalan Chaudahry Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 5699 of 2011 Lallan Choudhary ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, A.P.P.------THEI.A. No. 1810 of 2011 6/ 10.10.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect as The aforesaid interlocutory application is disposed of. List this bail application under the heading 'For Admission.pointed out by the Office, is hereby ignored.R.Kr.( H. C. Mishra, J.)...
Rookmania Devi Vs. Ideal Financing Industries
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 312 of 2008 Rookmania Devi... ...... ... ... ..... Petitioner RespondentsVersus Ideal Financing Industries & Anr. ..... ------CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha For the Respondent : Mr. Order No. 03 -----Dated 10th October, 2011The Office objection is that the petitioner has not submitted supplementary affidavit stating therein that he has not move restoration application earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. One week time is granted for filing supplementary affidavit. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Alankar/Sudhir/-...
Jagdish Dusadh and anr Vs. Md. Manzoor and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.2622of2011 JagdishDusadh&Anr.; Versus Md.Manzoor&Ors.; CORAM: ... ... ... ... ... Petitioners.RespondentsHONBLEMRS.JUSTICEPOONAMSRIVASTAV :Mr.RohitRanjanSinha,Advocate :ForthePetitioners FortheRespondents 02/10.10.2011Heardcounselforthepetitioners. Theinstantwritpetitionisagainsttheorderdated07.04.2011inT.S.No.126of2006refusingtheamendmentduringthependencyofthesuitbeforethetrial court. The submission is that the amendment sought isonly to correct the error whichcreptupinthepowerofattorneyrelatingtotheKhatanumberwhichisthe subjectmatter of dispute. A further submission isthat this veryamendment was soughtatapreviousstageformakinganamendmentofKhatanumberintheplaint whichwasallowedand,therefore,thesameKhatanumberwascarriedoutinthe power of attorneyas well,but thishasbeenrefused bymeans of the impugned order. Issuenoticetothecontestingrespondents. Returnableatanearlydate. Steps shall be taken by the learned counsel to serve the respondents by reg...
S.Nagrajan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHICr.M.P.No.1645 of 2007 with Cr.M.P.No.1665 of 2006 ----1.Arun Kumar Srivastava Petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1645/07 1.S.Nagrajan 2.Mukesh Ranjan Sinha 3.Rakesh Kumar Petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.1665/06 . Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors....,. ... Opp.party-----CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR -----For the Petitioners : M/s V.K.Tiwari and Indrajit Sinha For the State : A.P.P. -----09/10.10.2011 Both the applications arose from same FirstInformation Report, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that no offence is made out as against the petitioners, hence, the order taking cognizance is a mis-use of process of law. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the application, I find that...
Satyadeo Mandal 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. 2630 of 2011 1. Satyadeo Mandal 2. Kamli Devi, 3. Naresh Mandal 4.Nagin Mandal @ Nagendra Mandal.Versus..Petitioners Opposite PartyState of Jharkhand Coram :.HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr.Vishnu Kumar SharmaFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned It reveals from the written report that the daughter of thecounsel for the State. informant was done to death for want of more dowry. It is submitted that the husband has been granted regular bail by a Bench of this Court. It has come in the case diary that the deceased with her husband was living separately in mess and kitchen and the petitioners were not present at the time of the incident. Sons of the deceased have been examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. and they have not stating anything against these petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. I have gone through the case ...
Santosh Chauhan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5434 of 2011 Santosh Chauhan Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy :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 Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 508 of 2011. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Though, there is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and to have committed her dowry death, but it appears that the FIR was lodged by the maternal uncle of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and all the family members of the deceased have s...
Riyaz Ansari @ Altaf Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6737 of 2011 Riyaz Ansari @ Altaf Ansari Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioner Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay A. P.P.For 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,Prosecution. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case no.20 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.65 of 2010. From the FIR, it appears that an accused Bhola Pandey, while he was being brought from Dumka to Ranchi by the police escort party, was murdered in a hotel where the accused had gone to ease himself. The case was instituted against unknown as the culprits were not identified by the police party. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and ther...
Ram Lakhan Yadav and ors 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.6345 of 2010 Ram Lakhan Yadav and others.................. VERSUS State of Jharkhand and others...................Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD PetitionersFor the Petitioners : Mr. S.K.Keshri For the State : 11/ 10.10.11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since orderscontained in letters bearing nos.258 and 259 dated 18.9.2008 have been sought to be quashed, the office did point it out that those letters need tobe filed but the petitioners would be confining their prayer for quashing the order as contained in letter no.261 dated 18.9.2008 which has been annexed as Annexure 16 to the writ application and, therefore, there is no need of filing letter bearing nos.258 and 259 . In view of the facts and circumstances, defect pointed out by the office is hereby ignored. Let this matter be listed for admission on 22.11.2011.(R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/...
Akhilesh Prasad Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 5144 of 2011 Akhilesh Prasad Chaurasiya ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K.Appu, A.P.P.------THE4/ 10.10.2011Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for The petitioner has been made accused for the offence underthe Prosecution. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 683 of 2011. From the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner was injured while manufacturing bomb. The petitioner is in custody since 14.5.2011. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Akhilesh Prasad Chaurasiya, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount ea...
Gumani Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6800 of 2011 Gumani Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari A. P.P. Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State For the Informant 2/10.10.2011: : : ----Heard learned counsel forand learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Panki P.S. Case no.69 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.865 of 2011. The case relates to murder of one Lallu Mahto and the petitioner has been named in the FIR on the basis of suspicion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity which is admitted in the FIR itself and it is further submitted that only material against the petitioner is that the Sniffer Dog of the police had sat on...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »