Jharkhand Court May 2011 Judgments
Sukhdeo mallik Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another coaccused namely Nakul Mandal, who stands on similar footing with the present petitioner, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 1177 of 2011 vide order dated 16.3.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2010. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner, but not disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the fact and circumstance of the case and considering the submissions made by both the parties and also considering the period of custody of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Anil ohdar Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other coaccused namely, Chottu @ Zakir Ansari and Sonu, who are standing on the similar footing with the present petitioner have been granted bail in B.P. No. 800 of 2011 vide order dated 10.05.2011 by the learned court below. 3. He has further submitted that there is admitted enmity between both the parties. Learned counsel for the State Mr. V.S. Jha has submitted that there is direct allegation against the present petitioner. 4. He has further submitted that the present petitioner has cheated lady in this way taking 30 Bora cement from her. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of one month from the date of this order ...
Tag this Judgment!Dolly kumari and ors. Vs. the state of jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the victim girl (lady) and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 366A, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the close relatives of Roushan Kumar. He has further contended that the said Roushan Kumar, having been married with the victim girl, are now living together happily and peacefully. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the victim girl/lady (the Opp. No.3) has also admitted the aforesaid fact and has submitted that the victim lady and Roushan Kumar having been married are living together happily and peacefully. In support of this contention, the Opp. No.3 the victim lady has also filed an affidavit in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not a case of anticipatory bail as the victim girl is a minor and there is a direct all...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeo Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gomia P.S. Case no.230 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.1162 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 413 / 414 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Petitioner has been named in the FIR and this case relates to illegal mining of the coal. One truck was apprehended and the driver Chandu Choudhary disclosed that the petitioner was one of the persons who loaded the coal on the truck. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a labour and pressed for anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner was involved in the offence. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, Basudeo Mahto is rejected. If the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ashraf @ Afsar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 414 / 34 /120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Forest Act and Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 839 of 2003 which relates to the recovery of illegal mined coal from the Truck. Petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and name of petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused stating that Truck belongs to petitioner. 2 In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Md. Ashraf @ Afsar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar (Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Anmol Ratan Bara Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Kurdeg P.S. Case No. 40 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No.331 of 2009, S.T. Case No.76 of 2010, now pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Simdega. 2. The case was instituted against some unknown persons on the basis of ferd-beyan of one Brajnath Manjhi, who found the dead body of one woman lying in the bush. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no eye witness. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. From the impugned order passed by the Court below, it is apparent that there is only confessional statement of this petitioner before the police and there is no mention of eye witness to the occurrence. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on ba...
Tag this Judgment!Kariman Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 25(1-b) A and 26 of the Arms Act in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 6 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.26 of 2011 now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was apprehended by the police on 12.01.2011 and allegedly one country made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered from the possession of this petitioner. He further submits that this petitioner is in jail since 13.01.2011 and prays for bail. 3. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Kariman Singh, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction ...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Sheikh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 414 /120B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 230 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 2126 of 2008 which was instituted upon recovery of illegally mined coal from the premises of Ekram Soft Coke Insutries. One truck was found parked there and petitioner was found to be the owner of the said Truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and he prayed that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 2. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ibrahim Sheikh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!Md. sanjeeb @ raju @ md. sajeb Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 25(1b)a / 26 / 35 of the Arms Act in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 106 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 320 of 2010. 2. From the F.I.R. it is apparent that on 12.10.2010 the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from his possession one pistol with magazine and one extra cartridge was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2010 and accordingly he prayed for bail. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I’m inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Md. Sanjeeb @ Raju @ Md. Sajeb, 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 Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Umar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner has surrendered before the court below and to this effect, and supplementary affidavit has been filed along with the order passed by the court below. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rail (Ranchi) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation of theft of Rs. 700/-. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Md. Umar 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, (Railway), Ranchi in connection with Rail (Ranchi) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 30 of 2011....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »