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.
Sonu Nayak @ Sonu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6864 of 2011 Sonu Nayak @ Sonu Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani 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 302 ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kanke P.S. Case no.61 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.4087 of 2010. From the FIR, it appears that the petitioner is the son of the deceased and the deceased was assaulting his wife who had returned from mela in late hours. It is alleged that the deceased chased his wife with kulhari in his hand, whereupon she ran to her son, the petitioner, for help who was sleeping, whereupon the petitioner came to the rescue of his mother, snatched the kulhari from his father and assaulted the father due to which he died. In the facts and circums...
Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Md. Salim and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI F.A.No.134of2007 CentralCoalfieldsLtd. .Appellant. Versus Md.Salim&Anr.; ....Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI FortheAppellant : Mrs.NikiSinha,Advocate. FortheRespondentNo.1: Mr.AwaniKantPrasad,Advocate. 07/11.10.2011: Thisappealshallbeheard. Since the other side has appeared, no notice need be issued. CallfortheL.C.R.fromtheconcernedcourtbelow. I.A.No.3126of2008: When this interlocutory application is taken up, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the difference of compensation amount has not been deposited till date. However, she undertakes on instructions of her client that the difference of awarded amount shall be deposited within six weeks. In view of the above, this interlocutor application is disposedof,directingtheappellanttodepositthedifferenceof awardedamountwithinaperiodofsixweeksfromthedateof theorder. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant. (NarendraNathTiwari,J.)Sanjay/...
Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.5789of2008 LalBahadurSingh ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Respondents Versus TheStateofJharkhandandothers ... CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: Mr.R.P .Srivastava FortheRespondents: J.C.ToG.A. 04/Dated:11October,2011 th I.A.No.2677of2011 1) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this amendment petition is hereby allowed as it will not change the nature of the original writ petition. On the contrary, this amendment will facilitate the Court in arriving at a correct conclusion for resolving the disputes raised between the parties. Necessary amendment shall be carried out in red ink in the original writ petition. 2) I.A. No. 2677 of 2011 stands disposed of. 3) Put up this case after two weeks.(D.N.Patel,J)Manoj/cp.2...
Karma Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6861 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 Kolebira P.S. Case no.20 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.165 of 2008(s). 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 T.I.P. 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 fact...
Chanchal Kumar Kasera Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6855 of 2011 Chanchal Kumar Kasera Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Birat Kumar 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 395 ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Jagannathpur P.S. Case no.13 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.116 of 2011. The case relates dacoity and from the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Chanchal Kumar Kasera 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 ...
Jharkhand Marandi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6822 of 2011 ------.. -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr.Md.Hatim, 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 Mahagama P.S case no.156 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.1183 of 2010, T.R No.308 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case relates to the murder of one Dev Narayan Hansda @ Masterjee. It appears from the F.I.R that some persons have been named in the F.I.R but the petitioner has not been named. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been named in the confessional statement of the co-accused and except this, there is no other material against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accor...
Manzoor Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6948 of 2011 Manzoor Ansari @ Manzoor Mian Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: ..... . Petitioner Opposite PartyHONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary 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. 147/148/149/341/342/323/324/307/379/504 G.R. No.559 of 2011. From the FIR, it appears that there is allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused to have assaulted the informant side. It appears that there was dispute between the parties. It is submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Manzoor Ansari @ Manzoor Mian is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with tw...
Divisional Manager,jharkhand State Forest Development Corp Vs. Gyan Pr ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 311 of 2006 --Divisional Manager, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Garhwa Petitioner -VersusGhyan Prakash Keshri and Anr. Opp. Parties. --Coram: Honble Mr. Justice R.K. MerathiaHon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. BhattFor the Petitioner: For the State: Order No. 07 --Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Adv. A.P.P. --Dated:11th October, 2011I.A. No. 496 of 2006 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the State and the Opp. Party No. 1 . On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of five months and six days in filing this Criminal Misc. Petition is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 496 of 2006 stands disposed of.(R.K. Merathia, J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.)Anu/-...
Vicky @ Bhupendra Sahu @ Bhupendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6939 of 2011 Vicky @ Bhupendra Sahu @ Bhupendra Kumar Sahu ..... Versus The State of Jharkhand . CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey A. P.P. Petitioner Opposite PartyFor 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 366A ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Mango (Ulidih) P.S. Case no.328 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1697 of 2011. In the FIR, it is alleged that one Praveen Kumar enticed away the minor daughter of the informant. It also finds mention in the FIR that the informant was informed that this petitioner had helped the main accused in enticing the minor girl. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the main allegation of enticing away the girl is against Praveen Kumar and not against...
Dinesh Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6926 of 2011 ------Dinesh Nayak .. Petitioner -Versus...... Opposite Party -----CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State : Mr.R.C.P.Sah, 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 Murhu P.S case no.15 of 2002 corresponding to G.R No.96 of 2002, S.T No.585 of 2003 (B) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the petitioner was earlier on bail, but due to the misuse of privilege of bail, his bail bond was cancelled on 21.7.2008. Subsequently, petitioner was produced in the court below on 20.6.2011 and since then, he is in custody. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Dinesh Nayak is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »