Jharkhand Court May 2011 Judgments
Md. Parvez 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 State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lower Bazaar P. S. Case No. 157 of 2010 for the offences alleged under Sections 304(B) / 34 of the I.P.C. 2. There was allegation against the husband and in-laws of the daughter of the informant for committing the dowry death of Ghazala Masood who was the daughter of the informant – Masud Alam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased and all of the accused persons i.e., mother-in-law, father-in-law and the husband faced trial in Sessions Trial Case No. 602 of 2010 before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F. T. C. VIII, Ranchi and by the judgment dated 28.2.2011, all the co-accused persons have been acquitted after trial. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, particularly in view of the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Seema Kumari 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 State. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence registered under Sections 366A / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Angarha P.S. Case no. 11 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 999 of 2010, which was instituted on the basis of information given by Haria Mahto, who had alleged that on 16.2.2010 her daughter, Manita Kumari, was kidnapped and he has named the petitioner to be one of the accused. Subsequently, the girl was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein her age was assessed by the court below to be 13 years and she has stated that the petitioner was one of the persons, who had taken her to Delhi and Gujrat. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.9.2010 and as such, she may be released on bail. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the prosecution opposed the prayer for bail. 3. In view of the above facts,...
Tag this Judgment!Chedi pasi 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 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code; subsequently Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was also added in connection with Sadar (Mufasil) P.S. Case No. 404 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 1727 of 2010. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Nanku Ram in whose house and the house of other person’s dacoity was committed in the night between 27/28.05.2010 by unknown culprits. The case has been instituted against unknown. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not put on Test Identification Parade. From the F.I.R. it is apparent that the informant had claimed to identify the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail bu...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar @ Sandeep Jee Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sadar Town P.S. Case No. 120 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-AA), 25 (1-B) a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, which relates to the theft of the fire arms from the Police barrack. 2. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but from the impugned order, it appears that during investigation, some accused persons were apprehended who disclosed that it was the petitioner and his brother who had hatched conspiracy for theft of the sophisticated and automatic fire-arms and ammunition from the Police Magazine for their sale to TPC, an extremist outfit of which the petitioner was an active member. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail in this case by this Court and also att...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjit Singh @ Nanjee Singh @ Nand Baba Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.P. Case No. 65 of 2009. 2. The complaint was filed by complainant Pahwa Bhuwani, who has made allegation against twelve accused persons alleging that the accused persons cheated her by taking her thumb impression on blank paper and from his P.F. Account huge amount of money was withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered in the Court below and he was taken into custody and has prayed for bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint case, in which the petitioner has surrendered in the Court below, I am inclined to release t...
Tag this Judgment!Amit kumar sharma @ amit sharma and Others Vs. the State of ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in the name of petitioner no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 420/468/486/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63/65 of the Copy Right Act in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 48 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 789 of 2011. 3. Petitioners are made accused for the offence of making spurious cement and in that process petitioners were allegedly apprehended. From the F.I.R. itself it is apparent that the petitioners are only laborers engaged by the persons for the purpose of making spurious cement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they are only daily wages laborers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail....
Tag this Judgment!Chandradeep Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.P. Case No. 65 of 2009. 2. The complaint was filed by complainant Fahwa Bhuwani, who has made allegation against twelve accused persons alleging that the accused persons cheated her by taking her thumb impression on blank paper and from his P.F. Account huge amount of money was withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered in the Court below and he was taken into custody and has prayed for bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint case, in which the petitioner has surrendered in the Court below, I am inclined to release t...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 217 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is stated that pursuant to the registration of the case relating to kidnapping of one Abhimanyu Bhatiya, search operations were going on during which one car was intercepted by the Police. It is alleged that three persons from the car fled away towards the jungle and subsequently they were also apprehended by the Police and from the car, some incriminating articles were found which related to the kidnapped boy and some mobile phones were also recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the present case has been instituted for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the I.P.C. and for kidnapping, there is another case instituted against the petitioner, i.e., Lower Bazaar P.S. Case No. 168 of 2009.Learned counsel for the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Jaya Roy, J Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed in S.T.No.110 of 2007 arising out of Chandan Keyari (Barmasia) P.S. Case No. 119 of 2006 vide G.R. case No.1146 of 2006 under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro whereby the prayer for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution based on Fard Beyan of Urmila Devi wife of Koka Manjhi @ Tulsi Manjhi recorded on 14.10.2006 before Barmasia O.P. is that she was married about three years before with her husband Tulsi Manjhi who was dumb. She has no child. Her husband has two elder brothers (Bhainsurs), namely, Sadhak Manjhi and Dubraj Manjhi who after partition live separately. However, her f...
Tag this Judgment!Nawal Kishore Prasad Vs. the Jharkhand State Housing Board and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted a shop in the area – Adityapur, Plot No. 8, area 10' x 20' from where the petitioner has been carrying on betel shop. The allotment order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order shows that it was given on rent and the allotment was temporary. An agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the Housing Board. Clause 10(b) of the said agreement provides that tenancy agreement was operative for a period of 11 months and in the event the period of tenancy is extended, a fresh agreement will be executed between the parties. It is admitted that no fresh agreement was entered. 3. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that Housing Board has accepted rent upto April, 2011 and, therefore, their action is donatives of the fact that the agreement was extended and their eviction by means of letter no. 951 dated May,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »