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.
Dilip Roy Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused in a case of murder of Naresh Mishra as he has been alleged to have taken the deceased outside the house but in course of investigation, it has come that it was Sohan Manjhi, Jura Manjhi and Sushil Manjhi who had assaulted the deceased as a result of which, the deceased died. 4. 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. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 6 of 2006 arising out of G.R. No. 268 of 2006. ...
Rajendra sao Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 12 of 2009 registered under Sections 4/5 of the Explosives Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. 2. According to the self statement of S.I., Noel Kujur, one of the accused Shambhu Mochi, who happens to be a member of the terrorist organisation, was apprehended and on the basis of his confession, one detonator, connecting wire and other explosive substances have been recovered. 3. The apprehended accused had disclosed names of other accused persons including the name of the present petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has no concern with any terrorist organisation and he has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of extrajudicial confession. 4. It is further submitted that other coaccused having similar allegation, has been granted regular bail by this Court. Considering the submission, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surren...
Alok Kumar Mallick Vs. Janardan Mahadani
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.06.2007 passed by District Judge, Bokaro in Letter of Administration Case No. 01 of 2001, whereby and whereunder application for grant of letter of administration has been dismissed with cost. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned court below has given a finding that Will has not been proved, therefore, same cannot be looked into. It is submitted that scribe, P.W.-2 has proved the Will in question, thus finding of court below that Will has not been proved is wholly erroneous, therefore cannot be sustained. 3. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the impugned judgment. From perusal of same I find that submission raised on behalf of appellant is wholly misconceived. It is not in dispute that will is required to be attested by two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for proof of a document, which required by law to be attested. Section 68 of the E...
Khadim HussaIn Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 354/379/509/367/120B/376(2G)/307/366 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected for five times but the petitioner has been renewing his prayer for bail, as he has remained in custody for more than six years and, therefore, the petitioner be admitted to bail. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner remained absconding for about six years and that as per the report, called for, seven witnesses have already been examined and only four witnesses have remained to be examined and as such, the petitioner never deserves to be admitted to bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submission that the trial is progressing and that out of ele...
Pramod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The petitioner is an accused under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420, 120B and 34 I.P.C. There is allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner, who was Panchayat Supervisor, had submitted wrong report with regard to number of tube wells to be repaired. 2. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other accused, who were directed to identify the tube wells to be repaired in collusion with the contractor and other officials had embezzled government money. It is submitted that other co-accused, having more or less similar allegation, have been granted anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No. 125 of 2011. 3. It is further submitted that writ petitions filed by the petitioner and others was allowed vide order dated 18.3.2009 giving details with regard to the management of work to be done. Counsel appearing for the State has drawn my attention towards the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 by which the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Sessi...
Dhananjay Kumar Dubey Vs. the state of jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. In the matter of construction of over-bridge at railway crossing situated at Namkum, Ranchi, this Public Interest Litigation was entertained as back as on 14.02.2005 and since then several orders were passed including the order dated 04.04.2011 whereby notice of contempt of Court was issued to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand and the State Government straightway asking them to show why they should not be punished for contempt of Court. 2. However, said order dated 04.04.2011 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 8th April, 2011 obviously for taking proceeding for punishing the contemnors. However, the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the process of completion of bridge is going on. 3. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the State Government as well as the learned counsel for the Union of India, this Court certainly can look into the matter ...
Shambhu Sanjay Kumar Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 14 of 2011 registered under Sections 147/148/149/324/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. There is allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner along with his brother was present at the place of occurrence and Bijay Chandra showing the informant, had given order to one of his associate to kill the informant. 3. Thereafter the said person opened fire causing injury to the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner was not order giver and he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time. 4. As a matter of fact, both the brothers, who are named in the F.I.R. were admitted to the hospital at Hilsa with regard to the injuries caused to them in a road accident. It is also pointed out that the I.O. has verified the hospital record which is apparent from paragraphs 115 and 116 of the case diary. ...
Tulsi sao Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 341, 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code subsequently Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a number of coaccused have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court and also by this Court namely, Sarju Sao in B.A. No. 8269 of 2009 vide order dated 11.03.2010, Bhola Sao in B.A. No. 3242 of 2010 vide order dated 16.06.2010 and Surendra Sao in B.A. No. 5273 of 2009 vide order dated 13.10.2009, who are standing on the similar footing with the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha has opposed but not disputed the aforesaid contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner that few other coaccused have been granted bail by this Court and also by another Court, who are standing on the similar footing with the present petitioner. 4. Considering ...
Krishna bihari jaiswal Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1b) a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one loaded country made pistol and one cartridge have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.02.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was arrested at the railway station with the aforesaid firearm. 4. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely Krishna Bihari Jaiswal 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 Sri S.K. Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 106 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 435 of 2011, subje...
Niraj kumar and ors. Vs. the state of jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The petitioners are accused in this case registered under Sections 324/341/323/504/509, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant party was aggressor and he has lodged case against the petitioners earlier to the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 has also received some injury for which, he was admitted in RIMS for a week and, thereafter, he has surrendered before the court in connection with the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody from 04.05.2011. 4. Considering the fact and circumstance of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody for nearly a month, the petitioners, named above, 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 satis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›