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.
Vijay Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6373 of 2011 ------Vijay Rai Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr.J.Mahto, A.P.P. -----3/ 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Jamua P.S case no.96 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No.799 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 363, 366'A', 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation against the petitioner to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant along-with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the victim is major and the petitioner and the victim girl have married out of their own free will. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wher...
Jhulan Mahto @ Jhulan Mahto and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6786 of 2011 1. Jhulan Mahto @ Jhulen Mahto 2. Mahendar Manjhi @ Mahendra Manjhi @ Mahendra Tudu ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K.Prasad, A.P.P.------THE2/ 10.10.2011Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for The petitioners have been made accused for the offence underthe Prosecution. Sections 147, 148, 149 and 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 684 of 2009. Three persons including the informant were abducted by the miscreants and from the F.I.R. itself, it appears that subsequently they were released. From the F.I.R., it also appears that culprits could not be identified as they had covered their face. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been false...
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Chaklu @ Rahul Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6787 of 2011 ------Rahul Kumar Singh @ Chaklu @ Rahul Singh .. Petitioner -Versus...... Opposite Party -----CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.D.K.Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr.A.K.Sinha, 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 Golmuri (Burmamines) P.S case no.327 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.3383 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Petitioner was apprehended on 29.12.2010 and from the possession of the petitioner, one loaded country made pistol was recovered. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Rahul Kumar Singh @ Chaklu @ Rahul Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the sa...
Banwari Yadav 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. 1750 of 2011 ------1. Banwari Yadav 2. Kesho Yadav 3. Samundari YadavVersus -----.... .... ........ ...Petitioners Opp. PartyThe State of Jharkhand CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Parwez A. Khan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----I.A. No.1827 of 2011 05 /10.10.2011 The order dated 06.09.2011, passed by this Court, is modified. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within 10 days from the date of this order. No further time will be allowed if petitioners fail to surrender within the said period. I.A. No.1827 of 2011 stands disposed of.(D.N. Upadhyay, J)NKC...
Deepa Narayan Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.6160of2008 DeepNarayanBhagat ... Petitioner VersusTheStateofJharkhand&others...; Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: None FortheState: J.C.toG.PIII th 07:Dated10October,2011 1. 2. When the matter is called counsel, counsel for the petitioner is Itappearsthatpreviouslyontwooccasionsi.e.on9th March,2010absent. andon12th April,2010,whenthematterwascalledout,counselforthe petitionerwasabsentandtherefore,thematterwasadjourned.Todayalso, when the matter is called out, neither counsel for the petitioner nor anybody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this matter is dismissedfordefault.(D.N.Patel,J.)VK...
Bhagwan Das Burnwal and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2659 of 2011 Bhagwan Das Burnwal and othersVersus.. ...Petitioners Opposite PartiesState of Jharkhand ad another Coram :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr. A. K. SahaniFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011As prayed for, put up this case after Deepawali holidays Till the next date, no coercive steps shall be taken againstalong with ABA No. 2932 of 2011. the petitioners in connection with complaint case no. 750 of 2010, pending in the court of CJM Koderma. Let this order be communicated to the court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioners, as prayed for.Ambastha/-D.N.Upadhyay,J.)...
Jayantilal Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.5553of2009 JayantilalPatel Versus StateofJharkhand&Ors.; CORAM: ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner.RespondentsHONBLEMRS.JUSTICEPOONAMSRIVASTAV :M/sP.K.Prasad,Sr.Advocate,A.K.Pandey,Advocate :J.C.toSr.S.C.IForthePetitioner FortheState 04/10.10.2011Counsel for the State prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to filesupplementary counter affidavit, since the specific questions raised in the writ petitionhavenotbeenanswered. Listthiscaseon09.11.2011. Meanwhile,therespondentsshallnotadoptanycoercivemeasuresagainst thepetitioner. Manish (PoonamSrivastav,J.)...
Hari Narayan Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.3377of2011 HariNarayanRam... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhandandothers ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: Mr.ShivPrasad FortheRespondents: J.C.ToS.C.I th 03/Dated:10October,2011 1) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be fordisposalofthiswritpetition,ifadirectionisgiventorespondentNo.3 TheSecretary,DepartmentofWaterResources,Govt.ofJharkhand,Nepal House,Ranchitotreatthiswritpetitionasarepresentationanddecide thegrievancesventilatedinthiswritpetitionwithregardtobenefitsof AssuredCareerProgressionsaswellaspromotion,etcofthepetitioner,in accordancewithlaw,withinstipulatedtime,asgivenbythisCourt. 2) Ihaveheardcounselfortherespondents,whohassubmittedthat theyhavenomuchobjection,ifsuchadirectionisgiventorespondent no. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievancesventilatedinthiswritpetitioninaccordancewithlaw,within thestipulatedtime,asgive...
Tilak Macchua Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 429 of 2011 --Tilak Machhua Appellant -VersusThe State of Jharkhand Respondent --Coram: Honble Mr. Justice R.K. MerathiaHon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. BhattFor the Appellant: For the State: Order No. 06--Mr. B.K. Pandey, Adv. A.P.P. --Dated:10th October, 2011Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties on the prayer for bail of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is based on the ground that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the Chappals of the appellant were identified by P.W.- 3, though P.W.-3 said that the appellant and the deceased came to her house and went away after talking from outside; and P.W.- 5 said that the villagers told that the Chappals belong to the appellant and that no motive has come in this case and that the chain of circumstances is not completed and the appellant is in jail custody for about six years. Under the circumstances, during ...
Shams Tabrej @ Md. Shams Tabrej Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6735 of 2011 Shams Tabrej @ Md. Shams Tabrej Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioner Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Dr. H. Waris 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 498A ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Giridih(T) P.S. Case no.158 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1582 of 2010. The petitioner is the husband of the informant and though there is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected her to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry, but from the FIR itself, it is apparent that the wife was finally left by the husband and in-laws on 21.3.2010 and subsequently the FIR was lodged on 15.7.2010. It also appears from the impugned order that the petitioner had divorced the informant on 10.7.2010. The impugned order also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »