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.
Rungta Mines Limited (Sponge I Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(T)No.5934of2011 ..... RungtaMinesLimited(SpongeIronDivision)...Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhandandors......Respondents CORAM:HONBLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HONBLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY .... ForthePetitioner:Mr.SumitGadodia,Adv. FortheRespondents:JCtoAAG. ..... Orderno.2Dated11October,2011 th 1. In the identical matter, W.P .(T) No.5000 of 2011 , interim orderwaspassedon22ndSeptember,2011.Inthelightofthe saidorder,thepetitioner'scasealsostandscovered. 2. Listthismatteron12thDecember,2011alongwithW.P .(T)No. 5000of2011. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) (JayaRoy,J)G.Jha/...
Lakhan Sao and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6943 of 2011 1. Lakhan Sao 2. Tuleshwar Dangi Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi A. P.P. ..... PetitionersFor the Petitioners For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under SectionsProsecution. 15/17/18/20/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, in connection with Simaria P.S. Case no.27 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.146 of 2007. There is allegation against these petitioners to have involved in cultivation of posta and from the FIR itself, it is apparent that the petitioners were not apprehended at the spot. It is submitted that petitioners were named by the apprehended persons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners Lakhan Sao and Tuleshwar Dangi are directed to be released on bail, on furn...
Asheesh Dey Vs. Shyam Sundar Prasad and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4403 of 2011 Asheesh Dey Versus Shyam Sundar Prasad & Anr. .............. .............. For the petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate : ............. ...... ............ ...... ......... Petitioner Respondents.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI2/11.10.2011:This writ petition shall be heard. Issue notice to the respondent No.1 by registered post with A/Dfor which requisites etc. must be filed in Court within a week, failing which this petition, as against the concerned respondent, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)Shamim/...
Ashok Prasad Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6873 of 2011 Ashok Prasad Mehta Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under SectionsProsecution. 379/411/34/395/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case no.326 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.4234 of 2009. It appears that the petitioner was earlier on bail and his bail bond was cancelled on 14.6.2011 and subsequently the petitioner surrendered in the court below 0n 24.8.2011. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ashok Prasad Mehta is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amoun...
Bharosa Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6836 of 2011 ------Bharosa Ram .. Petitioner -Versus...... Opposite Party -----CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate M/s Lina Shakti, Awanish Shekhar, Advocates For the State : Mr.T.N.Verma, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr.Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate. -----2/ 11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner has been made accused in Rehla P.S case no.30 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No.817 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to the murder of one Anil Ram who had gone to attend the marriage party. From the F.I.R, it appears that deceased had received some calls on his mobile phone and thereafter, he went away. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found and the case was instituted against unknown. From the impugned order, ...
Dhadho Hazra and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6930 of 2011 1. Dhadho Hazra 2. Chathura Hazara @ Chetra Hazra Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioners Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey A. P.P.For the Petitioners For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Section 395 ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Tundi P.S. Case no.66 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.3316 of 2006. The case relates to dacoity in the house of the informant and the case was instituted against unknown. From the impugned order it appears that petitioners have been made accused in this case on the basis of the statement of some witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who was related to these petitioners stating that these petitioners and the other co-accused had stayed at his house and they left behind some utensils, which were loote...
Ravi Pahan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6869 of 2011 Ravi Pahan Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. P.K. Verma A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148,Prosecution. 149, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and 17 of the C.L.A. Act, in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case no 9 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.119 of 2011. From the FIR, it appears that there was an encounter between the police party and the extremists group and the petitioner has been named to be one of the persons from the extremists group. However, it appears that that there is no injury on the either side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ravi Pahan is directed to be released on...
Ugani Devi Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and O
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.1099of2009 UganiDevi ... Petitioner VersusCentralCoalfieldsLimited&others...Respondents; CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner:Mr.NandKishorePrasadSinha,Advocate FortheC.C.L.:Mr.AnandaSen,Advocate ForRespondentNo.7:Mr.DeepakRoshan,Advocate th 08:Dated11October,2011 1. Counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 is seeking time becausethoughseverallettershavebeenwrittentorespondentno.7,nobodyis respondingforgivingfactsofthecase.Counselfortherespondentshas pointed out some letters dated 26th February, 2009, 16th July, 2011, 5th August,2011and20thSeptember,2011.Despitetheseletters,nobodyhas come to give instructions to the counsel from the office of respondent no.7. 2. I, therefore, direct respondent no. 7 i.e. Regional CMPF Commissioner,RegionI,Ranchi,toremainpersonallypresentbeforethis Court on the next date of hearing at 10.30 a.m. or he may depute a responsibleofficertogiveinstructionstothecounselforrespondentno.7 onorbeforethenextd...
Arjun Yadav Vs. Central Coalfield Limited and or
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2751 of 2011 Arjun Yadav Petitioner Versus Central Coalfields Ltd. & ors. Respondents ----CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahua Palit, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Benani Verma, Advocate ----I.A. No.2690 of 2011 03/11.10.2011. An Interlocutory Application has been filed for impleadment ofSenior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office No.1, Ranchi, as party respondent No.5 in this case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,, Branch Office, No.1, Ranchi is a necessary party and hence, he needs to be impleaded as party respondent No.5 in this case. Prayer made in this Interlocutory Application is hereby, allowed. Accordingly, I.A. No.2690 of 2011 is disposed of. Let Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, No.1, Ranchi, be impleaded as party respondent No.5. On implea...
Chhotu Kumar @ Subhas Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6867 of 2011 Chhotu Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioner Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee A. P.P.For the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under SectionsProsecution. 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Katras P.S. Case no.109 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1600 of 2011. One truck loaded with coal was apprehended by the police which was found to be stolen. The petitioner has been made accused in this case, but he is not named in the FIR. However, from the impugned order, it appears that the witnesses stated before the police that the petitioner was involved in illegal transaction of the coal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Chhotu ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »