Jharkhand Court June 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.
Zoher Mehendi @ Johar Mehendi @ Munna Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gua (Bara Jamda) P.S Case No.73 of 2010 corresponding to G.R Case No. 612 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and 33 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals Development & Regulation Act. 3. There is an allegation against the petitioner that he had established his crusher unit in the forest area and accordingly, the case was instituted against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and before establishing his unit, he had already obtained an information which is annexed at Annexure-5, which shows that the place at which the petitioner wanted to establish his crusher unit, was not within the forest area. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory...
Mustakim Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 for the alleged offences under sections 414, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code which relates to the recovery of the two allegedly stolen motorcycles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused. From the impugned order, it also appears that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, Firoz Ansari. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender/arrest, the petitioner Mustakim Ansari shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sure...
Radhey Shyam Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 20.5.2010, passed by the SDJM, Seraikella in G.R. No.375 of 2000 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for dropping his criminal proceedings for want of sanction required under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. 2. Criminal prosecution of the petitioner and two others was set on motion on the basis of the written report, presented by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Icha Chaliyama, P.S.-Rajnagar, DistrictWest Singhbhum, whereupon Rajnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2000 was registered on 15.7.2000 for the alleged offence under Sections 406/409, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Radhey Shyam Pandey and the another Shradanand Singh, Junior Engineer on the allegation of missing of three self starters, which were valued at Rs.60,000/- each, on account of irresponsibility and negligence on the part of...
Ganesh bhumij Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. Heard Mrs. Preety Sinha, learned Amicus Curriae for the appellant and Mr. T.N.Verma, learned APP for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 18 th July 2003 by Sri S.N.Prasad, the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1998, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that when the informant of this caseKarmi Loharin was in her house on 07/11/1997, at about 8 p.m., the appellant Ganesh Bh...
Manoj Paswan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Prosecution. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Manatu P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 642 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 323/324/498A/304B/201/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. This case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the father of the deceased alleging therein that due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, his daughter was killed by the husband and inlaws. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is&...
Pradeep Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010 for the alleged offence under sections 25 (1-b)/26/27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. 3. Admittedly, nothing could be recovered from the petitioner as the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the case has been instituted under the Arms Act and for the offences under the Explosive Substance Act. 4. Though there is allegation that the Police party had encounter with the persons from the extremist group, but the case has not been lodged under the C.L.A. Act as is apparent from the F.I.R. itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, Pradeep Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav, he shall be released on bail on his furn...
Deo Kumar Singh anr ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrests in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 394 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to dowry death of the daughter of informant, Krishna Singh. 3. Though there is allegation against the petitioners in the first information report, but from the impugned order, it is apparent that petitioner no. 1 was the Maternal uncle-in-law of the deceased and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the co-villagers of her in-laws. 4. The impugned order also clearly shows that after investigation of the case, final form was submitted against the petitioners, but cognizance has been taken. 5. In the facts of this case particularity in view of the fact that after investigation, the police has submitted final form against petitioners, Deo Kumar Singh, Surya Deo Singh and Sudhir Singh, I am incline...
Pokhan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tundi P.S. Case No. 19 of 2010 for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is the father of the informant, Jageshwar Mandal and from the F.I.R., it appears that there is a property dispute between the parties for the partition of the ancestral property in which the occurrence had taken place and in which the grand sons of the petitioner were injured and one of them died. 4. There is no allegation against this petitioner to have assaulted any of the victims. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, Pokhan Mandal, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two suret...
Munni Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 294 of 2010 for the alleged offence under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30 (ii) of the Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. It is alleged that one truck loaded with coal was found, which was suspected to be illegally mined/stolen property and the petitioner is the owner of the truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the coal was the purchased property. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, Munni Devi, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ramgarh...
Pawan Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-16-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Though the case is listed “For Orders” awaiting the criminal antecedent report of the petitioner, which has not yet been received, learned counsel has argued the case on merit. 3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Excise Case No. 11 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 47(A), 55 and 19 of the Excise Act. 4. There is allegation against the petitioner that from his house some illicit liquor was recovered. From the impugned order, it appears that plea has been taken in the court below that the portion from where liquor was recovered was a rented portion and in respect thereof, an agreement of tenancy, which is dated prior to the date of the recovery, was filed. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Pawan Nayak @ Pawan Kumar Nayak. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his surrender/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »