Jharkhand Court December 2012 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.
Jugeshwar Thakur Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3777 o1. Jageshwar Thakur 2. Sudha Devi 3. Pankaj Thakur 4. Pawan Thakur @ Pawan Kumar .. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioners : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 03/19.12.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 323, 324, 379, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier to the present case petitioner No.3, namely Pankaj Thakur has lodged a criminal case against the present informant in this case. The F.I.R. of the said case is annexed in this application as Annexure-2. It is also contended that petitioners and the informant party have already compromised their disputes outside the Court, which has also come in the impugned order. Learn...
Pinki Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3743 of 2012 ---- Pinki Devi .... .... ... ... .... Petitioner ---Versus--- The State of Jharkhand .........Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ---- 3 / 19.12.2012 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is accused in this case registered under Sections 414/ 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged about 30 years and she is pregnant and her expected date is 5.2.2013 and to support her contention she has annexed certain medical prescriptions in Supplementary Affidavit as Annexure -1 series. Counsel for the State has opposed but not disputed the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact t...
Harihar Nath Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 234 of 2011 Harihar Nath Roy ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. . Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. N.P. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S. Choudhary, Advocate ----- 3 /19.12.2012 I.A. No. 298 of 2011 By way of present interlocutory application, petitioner seeks amendment in the writ petition. Amendment, as sought for by the petitioner, seems to be justified for the fair adjudication of the case. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, I.A. No.298 of 2011 is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 234 of 2011 Let the amended writ petition be placed on record on or before 10th January, 2013 with advance copy to the learned counsel for the Respondents. Counter affidavit, to the amended writ petition, may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. (Alok Singh, J.) R.K....
Rajeshwar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.3176of2011 RajeshwarSingh ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhandthroughtheSecretary, DepartmentofFoodSupplyandCommerce, Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi&Ors. ... ... ... Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEALOKSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.S.K.Dwivedi,Advocate FortheState :Mr.VikashKumar,J.C.toA.A.G. I.A.No.944of2012 06/19.12.2012 Thisisanapplicationseekingamendmentinthewritpetition. Forthereasonsstatedintheapplication,amendmentsoughtseemsto bejustandproperforfairadjudicationofthecase. Consequently,I.A.No.944of2012isallowed. W.P.(S)No.3176of2011 Let amended writ petition be placed on record on or before 10th of January, 2013 with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents. Letcounteraffidavittotheamendedwritpetitionbefiledwithinnext fourweeks. Rejoinderaffidavit,ifany,maybefiledwithinfourweeksthereafter. (AlokSingh,J.) Manish...
Krishnadeo Prasad and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.334 of 2009 with Cr.M.P.No.1061 of 2009 with Cr.M.P.No.1329 of 2005 Krishnadeo Prasad and others...............Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another ... .Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners:Mr. D.K.Dubey For the State :A.P.P 13.19.12.12. As prayed for on behalf of the petitioners, let these matters be posted on 14.1.2013. Till then, interim order passed in respective cases shall continue. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/...
ishwar Chaudhary Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.8791 of 2012 --- 1. Ishwar Chaudhary 2. Chandreshekhar Mahto 3. Meghanath Mahto 4. Dashrath Mahto 5. Kailimuddin Ansar @ Kalim 6. Mahfuz Ansari 7. Anwar Ansari ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Mangal Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Tripati Nath Verma, A.P.P. --- 02 /19.12.2012 Present Bail application is moved seeking regular bail in connection with Rajganj P.S. Case No.61 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.3588 of 2012 registered under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471, 473, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the offences are triable by the Magistrate and after investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted. He further submits that there is no public witness of the incident and all the alleged witnesses are the public servants. Therefore, there is no appreh...
Durga Marandi and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5585 of 2009 Durga Marandi & Ors. ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. . Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar, J.C. to G.P.-III ----- 4 /19.12.2012 I.A. No. 348 of 2010 By way of present interlocutory application, petitioners seek amendment in the writ petition. Amendment, as sought for by the petitioners, seems to be justified for the fair adjudication of the case. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, I.A. No.348 of 2010 is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 5585 of 2009 Let necessary correction be made in the memo of parties on or before 5th January, 2013. Counter affidavit, to the amended writ petition, may be filed within next six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. (Alok Singh, J.) R.K....
Sujit Sharma Alias Sujit Kumar Sharma Alias Pudi Sharma Vs. State of J ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9622 of 2012 Sujit Sharma @ Sujit Kumar Sharma @ Pudi Sharma ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajbansh Singh For the State :A. P.P. ----- 02/19.12.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 379, 461, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 629 of 2012. The case relates to theft in a shop. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Sujit Sharma @ Sujit Kumar Sharma @ Pudi Sharma is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella Kharsawan...
Bina Devi Vs. National Institute of Technolo
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2010 Bina Devi ..... Petitioner Versus National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur & Ors. . Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate ----- 6 /19.12.2012 I.A. No. 3622 of 2012 Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks pass over for the day. I do not find any good ground to take up this case out of turn. Therefore, I.A. No.3622 of 2012 is dismissed. W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2010 Counter affidavit and rejoinder, to the counter affidavit, have already been exchanged between the parties. List this case under the heading For Admission in the week, commencing from 14th January, 2013. It is clarified that the case may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. (Alok Singh, J.) R.K....
Virendra Pratap Dubey Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4499 of 2010 Virendra Pratap Dubey ..... Petitioner Versus The B.S.E.B., Patna & Ors. . Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R. Krishna, Advocate ----- 6 /19.12.2012 I.A. No. 215 of 2011 By way of present interlocutory application, petitioner seeks amendment in the writ petition. Amendment, as sought for by the petitioner, seems to be justified for the fair adjudication of the case. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, I.A. No.215 of 2011 is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 4499 of 2010 Let the amended writ petition be placed on record on or before 10th January, 2013 with advance copy to the learned counsel for the Respondents. Counter affidavit, to the amended writ petition, may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. (Alok Singh, J.) R.K....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »