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.
NavIn Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6523 of 2011 Navin Kumar Sinha Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State For the Informant 3/10.10.2011: Mr. Nutan Sharma : A. P.P. : R.K. Sinha ----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 304B/120B/34of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kadma P.S. Case no.45 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.555 of 2011. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and though there is allegation against the petitioner to have caused the death of the deceased ought to have abetted her suicide but from the FIR, it appears that there is no allegation in the FIR that there was any demand and torture for dowry. The FIR shows that there was differences between the parties due to some other reasons. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitione...
Laljidhar Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.1808of2008 LaljidharDwivedi ... Petitioner VersusTheStateofJharkhand&others...; Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: M/sBinodKr.Dubey,B.N.Tiwary,Advocates FortheState: J.C.toG.A., FortheA.G.: Mr.S.Srivastava,Advocate 06:Dated10October,2011 th 1. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that looking to thecounteraffidavit,filedbytherespondents,thegrievancesventilatedinthis writpetitionhavebeenbroughttoanendandtherefore,heisnotpressing this writ petition, at this stage, but, liberty may be reserved with the petitionertomakearepresentationifanyamountisyettobepaidtothe petitioner. 2. Inviewofthesesubmissions,thiswritpetitionis,hereby,disposedof asnotpressed,atthisstage,reservinglibertywiththepetitioner,asstated hereinabove.(D.N.Patel,J.)VK...
Tapeshwar Keshri Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1447 of 2007 Tapeshwar keshri ... ....PetitionerVs. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shyam Kr. Bhaskar ....Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: For the State: 13/10.10.2011: prosecution. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/None APPNo body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed for non...
Deepankar Baitha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 5835 of 2011 ------Deepankar Baitha Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Deo, Advocate. For the State : Mr.P.K.Appu, A.P.P. -----6/ 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Manjhiawn P.S case no.116 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No. 1485 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 366A/ 34 I.P.C. There is allegation against the petitioner to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is major and both of them had married. However, it appears from the statement of the victim girl, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C wherein she has clearly stated that she was abducted by the petitioner and she was forcefully married to him. She has also stated that she does not want to live with the petitioner. In...
Pawan @ Budhram Munda @ Budhram Lohra Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6250 of 2011 Pawan @ Budhram Munda @ Budhram Lohra ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari :A. P.P.For the Petitioner For the State----3/10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 59 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2772 of 2010 (S. T. No. 66 of 2011). The case relates to abduction of the husband and brother-in-law of the informant and it appears that after investigation the Police has submitted the charge sheet also under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion and there is no other material against the petitioner except the confessional statement and, accordingly, has...
Mukesh Kumar Bharti @ Mukesh Bharti Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6781 of 2011 Mukesh Kumar Bharti @ Mukesh Bharti ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K.Srivastava, A.P.P.------THE2/ 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 406, 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1401 of 2011. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of enquiry report of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, from which, it appears that misappropriation of money was made in Indira Awas Scheme. Though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. but it appears from the enquiry report attached to the F.I.R. that so far as allegation of misappropriation of money is concerned, t...
Duryodhan Mahto and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 496 of 2011 Duryodhan Mahto & Anr...... ... Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr ..... ..... Respondents ------CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. J.P. Sahu For the State : Sr. S.C. II Order No. 04 -----Dated 10th October, 2011 The petitioners have grievance that the order of this Court passed as back as on 1.02.1989 has not been complied with. From this very fact itself, no notice for committing disobedience of the order dated 1.02.1989 of this Court can be issued when the petitioners have themselves permitted to settle down the position by remaining silent for such a long period i.e., for more than 20 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in some of the matters relief has been granted to similar persons in the year 2011 by the respondents. If it is so even then also, the petitioners cannot get any benefit as the petitioners themselves are responsible ...
Pappu Johari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6249 of 2011 ------Pappu Johari Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.B.M.Tripathi, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr.R.C.P.Sah, A.P.P. -----3/ 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Sadar (Town) P.S case no.236 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No.1013 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. From the F.I.R, it appears that in the marriage party, two firings were made by the petitioner in the sky and the third firing was made on the chest of the deceased, causing his death. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that the case has been instituted under Section 304 I.P.C and from the case diary, it appe...
Jaganath Digar @ Sindhawa Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 2116 of 2011 Jaganath Digar @ Sindhawa ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Atanue Banerjee, Advocate------THE5/ 10.10.2011Pursuant to the order dated 8.7.2011, both the parties arephysically present in the Court and they have stated that cordial relationship has been established between them and they are living together in their matrimonial home. However, it appears that the conduct of the parties needs to be watched for some more period. In the facts of this case, provisional bail granted to the petitioner, Jaganath Digar @ Sindhawa, pursuant to the order dated 21.6.2011 is extended up to 13th April 2012. Both the parties are directed to appear in this Court on 9th of April 2012 and they shall report whether cordial relationship continues between them or not....
Bilash Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3431 of 2008 Bilash Sharma ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Prasad, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.------THE4/ 10.10.2011It is submitted that this application has become infractuous. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed as such.( H. C. Mishra, J.)R.Kr....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »