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.
Gulabi Das and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2633 of 2011 Gulabi Das and Jhalki DeviVersus.. ...Petitioners Opposite PartyState of Jharkhand Coram :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr. Arvind Kumar ChoudharyFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by thecounsel for the State. petitioners in connection with PCR case registered under sections 323/324/379/498A sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It reveals that the complainant has raised allegations against her husband and in laws and she was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty for want of more dowry. The date of occurrence is between October, 2008 and lastly on 9.4.2010 . It is submitted that earlier to this, another complaint case no. 7892/1999 ( T.R No. 1667/2010) was filed and it was ended in terms of the compromise on 19.4.2010 in presence of counsel for both the p...
Nepali Ganjhu @ Gorai Ganjhu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6756 of 2011 Nepali Ganjhu @ Gorai Ganjhu Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . PetitionerOpposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha :A. P.P.For the Petitioner For the State 02/10.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. forthe Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 364, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 17 of C.L.A. Act, in connection with S. T. Case No. 46 of 2010 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No. 179 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1518 of 2004. The case relates to abduction and murder of one Pankaj Kumar. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner is not named in the FIR and, accordingly, has prayed for bail. From the impugned order, it appears that only material against this petitioner is that the...
Dinesh Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6776 of 2011 Dinesh Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur :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 Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1127 of 2011 (S. T. No. 326 of 2011). The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and from the FIR, it appears that the deceased had committed suicide due to torture made by this petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Dinesh Singh 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 sat...
Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ravidas Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4978 of 2011 Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ravidas ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. D.K.Prasad, A.P.P.------THE5/ 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 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 60 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 959 of 2006. The case relates to murder of one Kishun Ravidas and the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of suspicion due to previous enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity as is apparent from the F.I.R. itself. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State though has opposed the ...
Dr.Nawal Kishore Prasad 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. 5435 of 2011 Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad Versus State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... ...... Petitioner Respondents-------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL -------For the petitioners: Mr. Sujit Nr. Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.A.G. -------th Order No. 2: Dated 10 October, 2011 Per D.N.Patel, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has retired as Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, with effect from 31st May, 2010, he has not been paid the amounts of G.P.F., gratuity and such other benefits. 2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, pointed out that so far as the amount of gratuity is concerned, necessary orders have been passed and the said amount has to be paid by the Treasury Officer, Patna, who is respondent no.7 in this writ petition. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that so far as t...
Etwa Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6774 of 2011 Etwa Oraon Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Suraj Deo Munda :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 Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S. T. No. 98 of 2009 arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No. 27 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 243 of 2009. There is direct allegation against this petitioner to have assaulted the deceased causing his death on the spot. The FIR has been lodged by the son of the deceased who is eye witness to the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner Etwa Oraon on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. (H. C. Mishra, J)Umesh/-...
Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.2183of2008 RajendraPrasadSharma ... Petitioner VersusTheStateofJharkhand&others...; Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: M/sRajeshKumar,A.K.Singh,Advocates FortheState: J.C.toG.A. th 05:Dated10October,2011 1. Counselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthepetitionerhasnotbeenpaid interest upon the G.P amount for the period running from 1st .F January,1971to31stMarch,1973.Moreover,additional1%interestasper Annexure3hasalsonotbeenpaid. 2. 3. 4. CounselfortherespondentsStateisseekingtimetotakeinstructions Time,asprayedfor,isgranted. Postthismatterafteroneweek. upontheseissues.(D.N.Patel,J.)VK...
Partha Pratim Chatterjee 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. 2587 of 2011 Partha Pratim ChatterjeeVersus..Petitioner Opposite PartiesState of Jharkhand & another ... Coram :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAYFor the petitioner (s): Mr. A.K.SahaniFor the Opposite Party : Addl.P.P.10.10.2011Issue notice to opposite party no.2 to show cause as to why Requisites etc for issue of notice both under registered coverthe relief prayed for by the petitioner in this application be not granted. with A/d as well as under ordinary process must be filed within a week. Put up this case after the Deepawali holidays. Till the next date, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner inC.P.case No. 159/2010 pending in the court of Sri R.K.Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.Ambastha/-D.N.Upadhyay,J.)...
Jay Nayyar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1577 of 2011 -----Versus .... ...Jay Nayyar.....Petitioner1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar Agrawal CORAM:------...Opp. Parties06HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----/10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It reveals from the complaint that the complainant had given nine cheques, each drawn for Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the petitioner as surety against supply of sponge iron which was agreed between them. It is submitted that the complainant has not furnished any document to show that any such agreement for supply of sponge iron has ever taken place between the parties. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had given Rs.45 lakhs to the complainant as friendly loan against which those nine cheques were given to him. Out of those nine cheques only two cheques we...
Arun Kumar Srivastava 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »