Jharkhand Court May 2011 Judgments
Ratan Gope 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 , 326 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in connection with Kolebira P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.92 of 2010 which was instituted on the basis of ferd-beyan of one Bal Mohan Singh and the said case is now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega. 2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 21.3.2010 father of the informant was murdered. From F.I.R., it is apparent that the co-accused Hira Singh had murdered the petitioner's father by firing the pistol. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. In the aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar 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 Ajay Kumar has been made accused for the offence under Section 341, 323, 324, 326 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case no.88/2010, corresponding to G.R. No.2651 of 2010 which was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the one Sumitra Devi. In the FIR, there is overt act of assault alleged against this petitioner and it is also alleged that the petitioner had bitten the ear-pinna of one Rakesh Kumar due to which the ear-pinna was severed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also stated that the co-accused has already been granted bail. 2. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ajay Kumar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Ram Mardi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. P. P. for the State. The petitioners are apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P. S. Case No. 53 of 2010 for the offences alleged under Sections 302 / 201 of the I.P.C. which was instituted on the basis of written information given by the informant – Shailendra Nath Hembram that his daughter was missing and on the next day her dead body was found. In the F.I.R., the informant has raised suspicion against these petitioners and one Barsa Hansda to have committed the murder. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-accused Barsa Hansda against whom also there is similar allegation has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 5.4.2011 in A.B.A. No. 631 of 2011 and prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but fairly accepted the fact that the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail. 4. In the facts and c...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Jha 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 381 / 411 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 301 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 864 of 2010 which relates to the theft of huge amount of iron rod from the factory premises on a Truck. The truck which was involved in the offence is registered in the name of wife of this petitioner and accordingly petitioner has been implicated in this case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no stolen articles have been recovered from the petitioner therefore he prayed that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Suman Jha 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 satisfacti...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Saha and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 384 / 387 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 2 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2011. 2. It is alleged by the informant, Zalhu Tudu that while he was making some construction upon the land, the petitioners came there and demanded Rangdari and restrained him from doing any work. 3. From the first information report, it is apparent that neither money has been taken from the informant nor any overt act has been alleged against the petitioners. 4. In view of the above stated fact, I am inclined to enlarge petitioners Pawan Kumar Saha and Chatur Marandi on bail. Accordingly, they are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikash Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 677 of 2011. 2. Petitioner was apprehended by the police for committing theft of Iron by cutting the same through gas cutter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Vikash Singh 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 677 of 2011....
Tag this Judgment!Meraj Alam Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 3(i)(ii)4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case no.51 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.243 of 2011. 2. It is alleged that some immoral traffic act was being conducted in a parlour and the said premises was raided on 21.01.2011 from where the petitioners were apprehended. Petitioner no.1 was found in a compromising position with a lady while petitioner no.2 was found sitting in the room. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are in custody since January, 2011. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. 3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners Meraj Alam and Upendra Thakur @ Bipendra Kumar Thakur are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipal mahali 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 399 / 402 / 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B)(a) / 26 / 35 of the Arms Act in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 72 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 957 of 2010. 2. From the F.I.R. it appears that the police was informed that some persons were making preparation for commission of the offence and the place was raided by the police and some persons were arrested including the petitioner. From the possession of the petitioner no fire arm was recovered though one mobile, some cash and one one pair of Payal was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2010 and accordingly he prayed for bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Nayak and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. P. P. for the State. The petitioners are apprehending his arrest in P. C. Case No. 82 of 2010 for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 354, 420, 392, 386, & 427 of the I.P.C. 2. The complaint petition was lodged by one Sanjay Das who allegedly purchased a shop from the petitioners and alleged that the petitioners have demanding more money from the complainant and due to which the occurrence took place between the complainant and the petitioners. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this case fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 4. In the circumstances, if petitioners – Gautam Nayak & Asit Nayak surrender in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Saraikella in connection with P. C. Case No. 82 of 2010 and pray for regular bail which will be considered without being prejudiced...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh 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 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.2 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.22 of 2010, now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of written report given by one Fool Kumari Devi who alleged that on 4.1.2010 her husband, who was a truck driver, went away with co-accused Raju Manjhi after dinner and on the next day, the dead body of her husband was found. She suspected that Raju Manjhi along with other co-accused have committed murder of her husband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner has not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of other co-accused persons and there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Therefore, he prays for bail. 4. Lear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »