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.
Binod Khatri @ Binod Kumar Khatri Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6825 of 2011 ------Binod Khatri @ Binod Kumar Khatri .. -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr.Tapas Roy, A.P.P. -----2/ 11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Telco Govindpur P.S case no.177 of 2009 corresponding to G.R No.1423 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act. From the F.I.R it appears that the house of the petitioner was raided by the police and the petitioner managed to flee away. From the house of the petitioner, four cartridges were recovered. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.3.2011. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Binod Khatri @ Binod Kumar Khatri is directed to be release...
Karma Oraonni Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6860 of 2011 Karma Oraon Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State 4/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 395 andProsecution. 397 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with T. Nagar P.S. Case no.18 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.147 of 2008. The case relates to bank dacoity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. There is no recovery from the petitioner and the petitioner was also not put to TIP. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for bail. From the impugned order, it appears that petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. In the facts and...
Ramanand Sao @ Ramanand Shaw Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2695 of 2011 -----Ramanand Sao @ Ramanand Shaw ... Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: -----.... ... ........ ...Petitioner Opp. PartyHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Complainant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----03 /11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A & 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner being the husband has arranged his second marriage when demand of dowry made by him from the complainant was not fulfilled. The complainant was also subjected to assault and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. It is submitted that the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is bailable and so far Section 498-A is concerned, false allegation of demand of dowry and torture has been levelled. Learned counsel appearing for the complain...
Motu Melgandi @ Mote Melgandi @ Mota Melgandi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6923 of 2011 ------Motu Melgandi @ Mote Melgandi @ Mota Melgandi .. Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr.S.Maji, A.P.P. -----2/ 11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Adityapur P.S case no.232 of 2008 corresponding to G.R No.796 of 2008, S.T No.23 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons took away the husband of the informant on the pretext of some feast. Thereafter, the husband of the informant did not return. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased (husband) was recovered and under Section 302 I.P.C was also added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only material against the petition...
Mahabir Mandal and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 369 of 2001 --Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2001 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1994 / 37 of 2001. 1. Mahabir Mandal (since deceased) 2. Babulal Yadav Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand Respondent --For the Appellants: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, APP ---PRESENT The Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice P.P. Bhatt---Judgment -Dated 11th October 2011 By Court: This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated30.07.2001 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1994 / 37 of 2001, convicting the appellants for the offences under sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each which has to be paid as compensation to the son of the deceas...
Kamal Prasad and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI L.P .A.No.256of2011 ..... KamalPrasadandors......Appellants Versus StateofJharkhandandors......Respondents CORAM:HONBLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HONBLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY .... FortheAppellants:M/sBinodKanth,SeniorAdv&Krishna; Murari,Adv. FortheState:Mr.AnilKumarSinha,AdvocateGeneral ..... Orderno.5Dated11October,2011 th 1. Learnedcounselfortheappellantshasarguedatsomelength andthisCourtfindsthatthereisapaucityoftimeasitis4.15 P .M.andthematterislongone,cannotbeconcluded. 2. LearnedAdvocateGeneralrequestednottocontinuewiththe interim order. But after hearing, we are of the considered opinionthatstayorderneednottobevacatedatthisstage andthematterbelistedforfinalhearingon8th November, 2011,immediatelyafterDipawaliholidays. 3. Postthismatteron8thNovember,2011.Tillthen,theinterim orderdated13.9.2011shallremaincontinue. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) G.Jha/(JayaRoy,J)...
Sheo Charan Kumar @ Sheo Charan Rajwar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6904 of 2011 Sheo Charan Kumar @ Sheo Charan Rajwar ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitabh, A.P.P.------THE2/ 11.10.2011 Prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the The petitioner has been made accused for the offence underSection 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 2807 of 2010. The case relates to road robbery. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Sheo Charan Kumar @ Sheo Charan Rajwar, 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 each, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in c...
Md. Aslam Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6842 of 2011 Md. Aslam Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Vandana Singh 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 364A ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case no.148 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.632 of 2011. The case relates to abduction for ransom of one doctor Lalit Jain and it appears that the said doctor was recovered and he has named this petitioner to be one of the culprits. 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...
Bhubneshwar Munda Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6727 of 2011 Bhubneshwar Munda ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.C.P.Sah, A.P.P.------THE2/ 11.10.2011 Prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the The petitioner has been made accused for the offence underSections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kuchai P.S. Case No. 3 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 64 of 2011 (S.T. No. 111 of 2011). From the F.I.R., it appears that the informant along with his family members including his daughter had gone to visit a Mela and three named accused including this petitioner started passing remarks on the girls, which was objected by the informant and all the three accused started assaulting the informant. When the daughter of the informant came to his rescue, they also assaulted the daughter of the i...
Rup Chatterjee and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2692 of 2011 -----... .... ... .... ...... ... Petitioners Opp. Party1. Rup Chatterjee 2. Jagbandhu ChandraVersus ------The State of Jharkhand CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioners : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----04 /11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 & 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons defalcated Rs.6,93,697/- in MNREGA Project. It is submitted that the defalcated money has already been deposited jointly by all the accused persons. The other co-accused namely Rajesh Kishore Narayan and Vinay Kumar, against whom there is similar allegation, have been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide A.B.A. No.1900 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011. Another co-accused, namely, Arbind Singh @ Arvind Singh has also b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »