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.
Kiran Tirkey Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6791 of 2011 ------Kiran Tirkey .. Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.J.Mahto, 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 Simdega P.S case no.27 of 2009 corresponding to G.R No.72 of 2009, S.T No.83 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 447, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted the deceased. Bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected on 16.4.2010 in B.A No. 1220 of 2010 and subsequently, his bail application was again rejected on 4.2.2011 in B.A No. 9235 of 2010 giving the liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer after five months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody ...
Niraj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4966 of 2011 Niraj Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. Palit, A.P.P.------THE3/ 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 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 414, 332, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Law Against but Conversation (Prohibited). in connection with Bero P.S. Case No. 52 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 3296 of 2008. From the F.I.R., it appears that there was heavy exchange of fire between the police party and extremists group, in which, there was injuries and causality in the side of the extremists group. It appears that there is no causality or in...
Suchi @ Suchita 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. 2668 of 2011 Awadhesh Kumar JaisswalVersus.. ...Petitioner Opposite PartyState of Jharkhand Coram :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr. Rakesh KumarFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by thecounsel for the State. petitioner in connection with Mahuadanr PS offence registered under sections 307/34 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged in the FIR that blank fire was done by tbe body guard of Manoj Jaiswal causing hue and cry in the locality. When the father of the informant raised objection, he was threatened by the petitioner and his associates. It is submitted that no case under section 307 IPC or section 27 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioner. No cartridge was found at the place of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering the facts and...
Miss Rishika Shahi and anr Vs. Biresh Prasad Shahi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.86 of 2009 Miss Rishika Shahi & Anr. Biresh Prasad Shahi .............. Versus ...... .............. .......... ............ Appellants Respondent.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI .............. For the Appellants For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rishav Dev, Advocate .............6/10.10.2011:This appeal shall be heard on the following substantial questionsof law :1) Whether the learned lower appellate court has committed grave error in reversing the finding of learned trial court and upholding the deed of gift, though the execution of the same was not proved by the attesting witnesses as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act 2) Whether the finding of learned lower appellate court on the acquisition of right title by virtue of gift deed is vitiated for nonconsideration of the gift in view of the requirement of acceptance provided in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act Since the respond...
Azad Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6598 of 2011 Azad Ansari Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Md. Razaullah Ansari 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 Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 376 of theProsecution. Indian Penal Code, in connection with Bundu P.S. Case no.128 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.5085 of 2009, S.T. No.343 of 2010. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have committed rape upon the informant. 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...
Chhotaka Shankho Tudu and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 530 of 2011 --Chhotaka Shankha Tudu @ Chhota Shankho Tudu and Ors. ..Appellants -VersusThe State of Jharkhand ..Respondent --Coram: Honble Mr. Justice R.K. MerathiaHon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. BhattFor the Appellant(s): For the State: Order No. 03--Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv. A.P.P. --Dated:10th October, 2011I.A. No. 1727 of 2011 Heard. It is submitted that the appellants have not gained any advantage by filing this appeal after long delay. On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 495 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1727 of 2011 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 530 of 2011 Admit. Issue notice. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that the lower court records has already been called for in Cr. Appeal (D.B. ) No. 749/2010. Let this case be tagged with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 749/2010 for considering the prayer for bail of the appellants.(R.K. Merathi...
Prakash Narayan and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.4786of2011 1. PrakashNarayan 2. VinayKumar 3. PradipKumarSinha 4. Mrs.VinitaSinhaVerma 5. SureshKumarJain 6. UmaShankarSahu 7. MurariPrasad ... Versus TheStateofJharkhandandothers ... ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioners: Mr.AjitKumar FortheRespondents: J.C.ToSr.S.C.II,J.C.toMr.AnoopKumarMehta &Mr.T.N.Mishra; 03/Dated:10October,2011 th 1) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that suffice it will be for ... ... ... ... Petitionersdisposalofthiswritpetition,ifadirectionisgiventorespondentNo.6 TheRegistrar,RanchiUniversity,Ranchi,totreatthiswritpetitionasa representationanddecidethegrievancesventilatedinthiswritpetition withregardtotheUGCArrearsofdifferenceofsalaryfortheperiodfrom 01.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 and entire arrears of UGC Fifth scale from 01.1.1996to31.3.2000,inaccordancewithlaw,withinstipulatedtime, asgivenbythisCourt. 2) Ihaveheardcounselfortherespondents,whohassubmittedthat theyhavenomuchobjection,i...
Budhram Gope @ Sunil Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6807 of 2011 Budhram Gope @ Sunil Gope Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioner Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha 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 406/379Prosecution. of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Hatgamharia P.S. Case no.12 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.182 of 2011. The case relates to commission of theft of truck loaded with iron ore. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Budhram Gope @ Sunil Gope 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 satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa, in connection with Hatgamharia ...
Md.Aslam Ansari @ Md.Aslam 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. 3125 of 2011 -----Md. Aslam Ansari @ Md. Aslam ... Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Sakina Ara CORAM: .... ... ........Petitioner------.Opp. PartiesHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----02 /10.10.2011 As prayed, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.(D.N. Upadhyay, J.)NKC...
State of Jharkhand Thr.Executi Vs. Hari Bansh Pandey and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 458 of 2008 The State of Jharkhand...... ... ... ..... Appellant RespondentsVersus Hari Bansh Pandey & Ors ..... ------CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A For the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Roy Order No. 10 -----Dated 10th October, 2011I.A. No. 68 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 133 days. In view of the reasons assigned, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A. No. 68 of 2009 stands disposed of. Office to proceed. Office is directed to list this matter after showing the name of Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate who is appearing for the appellant. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Alankar/Sudhir/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »