Jharkhand Court May 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.
Shankar Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Shankar Prasad is moved by M/s. Gauri Devi and opposed by Sri. P.K. Sahay, learned Additional P.P. It appears that petitioner was earlier granted bail on merit with condition that he will surrender within 10 days from the date of order. However, it appears that due to illness, petitioner could not surrender within the stipulated time. In support of contention, petitioner filed medical certificate (Annexure-1). 2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below by 27.05.2011 and in that event the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Sidgora P.S. Case No. 78 of 2010 ( G.R. No. 1158 of 2010), subject to the condition as laid down under sec...
Urmila Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. 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 fat...
Gulam HussaIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered for the offence under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; petitioner is a cleaner of the vehicle; the allegation of removal of the vehicle by the petitioner is wholly false and baseless; he is in custody since October, 2010; petitioner is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding. 2. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but has not disputed the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner 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, Chaibasa in connection with Gua P.S. case no.04 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case no.33 of 20...
Hemendra Pratap Dehati Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. We are constrained to observe that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand and Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Chhatisgarh, failed to comply with the order dated 6th May, 2011 in its true spirit rather to say they acted against the order dated 6th May, 2011 which is apparent from their report dated 12th May, 2011 submitted alongwith the affidavit dated 16th May, 2011. 2. We are again constraint to observe that a plan to construct the Dam was conceived in the year 1974 over the river Kanhar and the process of survey for the purpose of taking a final decision is going on for the last more than 36 years. The decision to construct a dam on the river was of the Government and not of the public. Need was felt in the year 1974 for construction of a dam over the river. Only thing done was that the monetary benefit was given to the employees and officers of the Government appointed by the Government since 1974. Every year millions of rupe...
Sarfaraj khan @ sarpharaj khan Vs. State of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. It is submitted that the petitionerhusband is in jail for about 10 months in connection with this case, registered under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/ (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Haidar Nagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1543 of 2010....
Jageshwar Gope Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the order dated 25th November, 2010 and the petitioner-appellant wrongly approached this Court by preferring the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the disputed claim, where several disputed questions of fact are involved and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner is free to avail the other remedy in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has observed that the respondents are free to take appropriate steps against the petitioner or his contractor for vacating the land. 4. This is the only observation and not a license to the respondents to take possession of the property illegally or otherwise, then in accordance with law. Even if this portion of the said observation is deleted, the right of the respondents to take steps against the petition...
Hemendra Pratap Dehati Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are constrained to observe that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand and Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Chhatisgarh, failed to comply with the order dated 6th May, 2011 in its true spirit rather to say they acted against the order dated 6th May, 2011 which is apparent from their report dated 12th May, 2011 submitted alongwith the affidavit dated 16th May, 2011. 2. We are again constraint to observe that a plan to construct the Dam was conceived in the year 1974 over the river Kanhar and the process of survey for the purpose of taking a final decision is going on for the last more than 36 years. The decision to construct a dam on the river was of the Government and not of the public. Need was felt in the year 1974 for construction of a dam over the river. Only thing done was that the monetary benefit was given to the employees and officers of the Government appointed by the Government ...
Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd., Adityapur, Jamshedpur Vs. the Union of Indi ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Heard the parties finally at length. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.10.2010, passed in Revision Application File No. 06/10/2008-RC.1 by the Revisional Authority, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Government dated 11.2.2008, recommending the application filed by respondent no. 7 ( R-7) for grant of mining lease for Iron Ore and Manganese Ore over the area in question. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the recommendation and the prior approval granted by the Central Government dated 5.6.2008 for grant of the said mining lease in favour of R-7. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the recommendation made by the State Government and for a direction to it to reconsider all the applications made by the parties for the said mining lease without being influenced by the orders passed in other writ petition, and by giving preference to the Industries already established within the St...
Md. Jainul Ansari @ Md. Zainul Haque Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim and he has further submitted that the victim was married with their son according to her own wish and they never live with them. In April, 2010 the (complainant) victim had filed a "Khullanama" before the Civil Court, Bhagalpur and after sometime she has lodged the instant case against the entire family of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that though she has written "Khullanama" but not a single "Denmohar" has been paid to her by her husband. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from the date of this order and if they surrender, the court below is directed to enlarge the pet...
Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India, Through the Under Se ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Heard the parties finally at length. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.10.2010, passed in Revision Application File No. 06/10/2008-RC.1 by the Revisional Authority, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Government dated 11.2.2008, recommending the application filed by respondent no. 7 ( R-7) for grant of mining lease for Iron Ore and Manganese Ore over the area in question. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the recommendation and the prior approval granted by the Central Government dated 5.6.2008 for grant of the said mining lease in favour of R-7. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the recommendation made by the State Government and for a direction to it to reconsider all the applications made by the parties for the said mining lease without being influenced by the orders passed in other writ petition, and by giving preference to the Industries already established within the State of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »