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.
Sushma Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The instant application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 8 days delay in filing this Cr. Revision. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken and explanations made therein , delay in filing this Cr. Revision is condoned and the instant application is allowed. I.A. No. 2673 of 2010 stands disposed of.Cr.Rev. No. 1074 of 2010This Cr. Rev shall be heard.2. Call for the L.C.R of C-50/2002 corresponding to Tr. No. 41 of 2010 from the court of Sri. Koushik Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhwa along with the copy of the judgment recorded in Cr.Appeal 16 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Garhwa.3. Put up this case after four weeks.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners surrendered in the court below on 10.5.2011 after the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, for their conviction under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The other convic...
Niranjan Prasad Deo and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. Order No. 11 Dated: 16th of May, 2011. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge and vide order dated 05.05.2008 only notices have been issued on the respondents u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the L.P.A. is delayed by 107 days.2. There are total 51 respondents out of which some of the respondents have been deleted vide order dated 09.02.2009. As per the office report several respondents yet remain unserved, therefore, we looked into the order dated 14th July, 2006 and found that the learned Single Judge has observed that the promotions under challenge were made on 31st December, 1985 and the order of appointment were issued to the respondents in the year 1987-1988-1989 and the writ petition has been preferred after a delay of 16 to 21 years relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Roshan Lal Vrs. International Airport Authority of India, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C.597 and another in Sajay K.S...
Sadhan Chandra Dey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. It is submitted that a similarly situated co-accused Sri Kant Das was granted bail vide order dated 02.02.2011 passed in B.A. No. 8694 of 2010; and the petitioner is a handicapped person and is a student; and he is in jail for about ten months in this case of Arms Act.2. On the other hand, Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the State, pointed out that the recovery of firearm used in the offence, was made on the basis of the confession of the petitioner and co- accused Nirmal Ravidas; and that the case of the co-accused Sri Kant Das is different from the case of the petitioner as his confession is general in nature; and that this is an off-shoot of the main case vide Nirsa P.S. Case No. 183/2010 under section 302 IPC. In my opinion, case of the petitioner is different from the case of Sri Kant Das and secondly, it appears that on the confession of the petitioner and co-accused Nirmal Ravidas, arms used in the crime was recovered.3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am no...
Smt. Dipali Das @ Priti Das Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 06/16.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of Section 302 charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. He has further submitted that the victim has committed suicide and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Counsel for the State has submitted that material has come that the petitioner used to torture the victim. Considering the submission made by both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected....
Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. 8/ 16.5.2011 Instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Kumar with the prayer for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 14.2.2011, by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi directed for attachment of the salary of the petitioner under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not making payment of ad interim maintenance to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of the main petition except that only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards arrears. I find from the perusal of the order dated 14.2.2011, recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi that by the order dated 4.3.2010, petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.3000/- per month each to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being wife and minor daughter total a sum of Rs.6000/- and Rs.5,000/- in lump sum being the litigation cost, but the Principal Judge observed that his order was flouted. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the Government P...
Kaila Sao @ Kailash Sao Vs. Gangadhar Sao
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no eye witness in this case and that petitioners are in jail only on the basis of suspicion and that they are in jail since 27.07.2010. On the other hand, State counsel pointed out that deceased had lodged a case against the petitioners under section 376 IPC and that there was land dispute also and that in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 the eye witnesses- the children and husband of the deceased have specifically said that the petitioners along with others took the deceased forcibly from the house and then she was found dead after 2-3 days.2. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected....
Sumant Kumar Sen. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. D.K.Sinha,J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2001 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No.312 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the petitioner was called upon to stand charged for the alleged offence under Sections 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story in short was that the prosecutrix Tutul Kumari, aged about 15 years presented a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarh within the District of Dumka stating that her father was a hawker who used to visit weekly. The petitioner was having a grocery shop opposite her house where the prosecutrix used to visit the shop for purchasing grocery items. On the previous month of "Baishak" in the year 2000 it was the day of full moon she visited his shop to which the petitioner proposed to marry her. Two days thereafter, the pe...
Dharamvir Bhadoria Vs. Union of India Through Spcbi
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1d) of P.C. Act, 1988, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with R. C. 20A/2009 ( R).2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is a Contractor, was given the construction of road work and the allegation against him is that the petitionercontractor was not authorized to purchase bitumen from the Government Oil Companies. However, without purchasing any bitumen from Indian Oil Company, Gamharia the petitionercontractor submits 37 nos. of bitumen invoices showing purchase of 217.863 MT of packed bitumen. It is further submitted that as per supplementary affidavit at page 21 the C.B.I. has given a finding in their report that 37 invoices were genuine and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.3. On the other hand, learned counsel f...
Saroj Sao Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 143, 341, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Chowka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 of 2010.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within 2 weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M. Seraikella in connection with Chouka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and further conditions that (i) one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court....
Munir @ Munil Ganjhu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand Ranchi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlearned A.P.P. appearing for the State.The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections398/395 of Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatearlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected on13.08.2010, but considering the long detention and also the fact thatfour witnesses out of seven witnesses had already been examined,liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail afterfour months if the trial is not concluded by that time, but theposition is that in the month of November, 2010 on the applicationof the prosecutor, charge was amended and thereby all the witnesseshave now been summoned afresh and in that view of the matterthere would be considerable delay in trial and therefore keeping inview the fact that petitioner is in custody since 31st of July, 2008,petitioner be admitted to bail.3. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »