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.
Kati @ Katich Hembrom Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6374 of 2011 ------Kati @ Katich Hembrom @ Katich Hemwap .. Petitioner -Versus...... Opposite Party -----CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Das, Advocate For the State : Mr.T.N.Verma, 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 Pakuria P.S case no.53 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.551 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted his wife, causing his death. The informant, who is the father of the deceased, is also an eye witness to the occurrence. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Kati @ Katich Hembrom @ Katich Hemwap is hereby rejected. The State of Jharkhand(H.C.Mishra, J.)B.S/...
Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7342 of 2011 Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Singh..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA :Mr. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal :A. P.P.For 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 47(a)/47(d)/55/18 of the Excise Act, in connection with Excise Case No. 10 of 2011 (T. R. No. 1497 of 2011). From the FIR, it appears that a large quantity of illegal liquor and foreign liquor were recovered from the house of one Lal Bahadur Das. It is alleged that the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence and he could not be apprehended. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing b...
Sohail Ahmad 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. 2472 of 2011 -----Versus .... ...Sohail Ahmad.....Petitioner1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Zubair Mallick CORAM:------...Opp. PartiesHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----05 /10.10.2011 As prayed, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.(D.N. Upadhyay, J.)NKC...
Jaladhar Mahato @ Jaliram Mahato Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 6793 of 2011 ------Jaladhar Mahato @ Jaliram Mahato @ Jalo Ram .. Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand CORAM : ...... Opposite Party -----HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr.D.K.Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Ms.Anita Sinha, A.P.P. -----2/ 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Patamda P.S case no.18 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.945 of 2010, S.T No.253 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was apprehended alongwith motorcycle which was found to be stolen and some mobile phones were also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Jaladhar Mahato @ Jaliram Mahato @ Jalo Ram is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Th...
The Collector Central Excise Vs. M/S Hindustan Welding Electrod
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No. 14 of 2008 With I.A. No. 3477 of 2009 The Collector, Central Excise... ... Petitioner Versus M/s Hindustan Welding Electrodes..... ..... Respondent ------CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : None Order No. 06 -----Dated 10th October, 2011None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly Tax Case No. 1 of 1994 (R) was dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 3.4.2006. The dismissal order was duly informed to the counsel appearing for the petitioner by the Registry on 18th May, 2006 and this application was submitted for restoration of the Tax Case on 11.1.2008 and that too without assigning any reason for not taking steps in time even after dismissal of the Tax Case. The ground in this application for restoration is that inadvertently because of the misplacement of brief the order dated 3.4.2006 was not complied with. But as we have noticed that no ground has been shown for not ta...
Ram Prawesh Singh @ Guddu Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 475 of 2011 --Ram Prawesh Singh @ Guddu Singh Appellant -VersusThe State of Jharkhand Respondent --Coram: Honble Mr. Justice R.K. MerathiaHon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. BhattFor the Appellant: For the State: Order No. 04--Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv. A.P.P. --Dated:10th October, 2011I.A. No. 1514 of 2011 Heard. It is submitted that the appellant has not gained any advantage by filing this appeal after long delay. On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 160 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1514 of 2011 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 475 of 2011 Admit. Issue notice. Call for the lower court records. Put up thereafter under the heading For Orders for considering the prayer for bail of the appellant.(R.K. Merathia, J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.)Anu/-...
Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.2201of2008 KaushalyaDevi ... Petitioner VersusTheStateofJharkhand&others...; Respondents CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner: M/sJitendraNath,S.Katariar,Advocates FortheState: J.C.toG.P .III th 06:Dated10October,2011 1. Counselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthegrievancesventilatedinthis writpetitionhavebeenbroughttoanendandtherefore,heisnot pressingthiswritpetition,atthisstage. 2. Inviewofthissubmission,thiswritpetitionis,hereby,disposedofas notpressed,atthisstage.(D.N.Patel,J.)VK...
Lakhan Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2552 of 2011 -----Versus -----.... ...Lakhan Mahto. ........ ...Petitioner Opp. PartyThe State of Jharkhand CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----05 /10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No.28 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.328 of 2011 registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of Forest Act which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. It reveals from the F.I.R. that the tractor belonging to this petitioner was found carrying two metric tonnes of coal and the tractor was plying without number plate. It is submitted that the police has lodged a false case and the seizure witnesses are professional and manufactured by the police. The petitioner has no concern with the illegal trade of coal...
Yogesh Mahto and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHICr.Appl.(DB)No.207of2005YogeshMahto&Ors......................; Versus StateofJharkhand Coram: HonbleMr.JusticeR.K.Merathia Appellants RespondentHon'bleMr.JusticeP.P.BhattFortheAppellants FortheState OrderNo.06 I.A.No.1690of2011 :Mr.K.P.Deo,Advocate :Mr.APP Datedthe10October2011 th Mr. K.P.Deo, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that thisinterlocutoryapplicationhasbeenfiledforbailonbehalfofappellant no.5GopalMahto.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthoughtheprayerforbailof thisappellantswasearliertwicerejected onmerit firstlyon04/05/2005 and then on 31/03/2008, but he has remained in jail custody since 19/01/2005;andthathewasallalongonbailduringthetrial. Mr.Deo,triedtoargueonthemeritofthecasealso. After hearing the parties, we are not inclined to reconsider the prayerforbailofthisappellant.Accordingly,itisrejectedagain. I.A.No.1690of2011standsdisposedof.(R.K.Merathia,J)(P.P.Bhatt,J) Mukund/...
Sadanand Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal ( DB) No. 647 of 2006 Sadanand Yadav & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand Respondent -------Coram: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT -------For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : APP -------Order No. 7 Dated the 10th October, 2011 I.A. No.914 of 2011 Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that this I.A. has been filed for bail on behalf of appellant no-5-Narayan Baitha on the ground that though his prayer for bail was rejected on 28.7.2006 and on 5.12.2007 but he has remained in jail for more than 5 years by now. He also tried to argue the case on merits. After hearing the parties, we are not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of appellant no. 5. It further appears that prayer for bail of this appellant was earlier rejected twice on merits. Accordingly, prayer for bail of appellant no. 5 is rejected. I.A. No. 914 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »