Jharkhand Court September 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.
Md Akram Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5549 of 2012 ------ Md. Akram Ansari . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.N.K.Chatterjee, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The complainant has already been noticed. The petitioner has been made accused in P.C.R Case No.353 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 323, 379, 498 A of the I.P.C read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected the complainant to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. The petitioner is in custody since 05.6.2012. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, Md. Akram Ansari is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) wi...
Sanjay Kumar Vishwakarma ? Sanjay Vishwakarma Vs. State of Jharkhand a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.4000of2011 SanjayKumarVishwakarma@SanjayVishwakarma. ... ...Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand. 2.SunitaDevi. ... ... ... ... ... ...Opp.Parties CORAM: THEHONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioner: Mr.NilenduKumar,Advocate. FortheState: A.P .P. FortheO.P.No.2: Mr.PrabirChatterjee,Advocate. 05/17.09.2012 It reveals from the written report that the complainant was subjectedtotortureandtreatedwithcrueltybythepetitioner,whohappenstobe thehusband,forwantofdowry. It is submitted that the complainat herself has preferred matrimonial suit seeking divorce and she does not want to live with the petitioner.Shehaslodgedthiscasewithfalseallegation. LearnedCounselfortheStatehasvehementlyopposedtheprayer and submitted that earlier to this, complaint was filed which was ended in compromise. Again complainant experienced same behaviour. The reprot submitted by the Mediator is indicative of the fact that the petitioner never appearedbeforetheMediation...
Arun Kumar Nagesia Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4904 of 2012 Arun Kumar Nagesia ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302, 307, 353, 422, 435, 329, 171, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections, 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, Sections 38, 39 of the U.A.P. Act, in connection with Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 5 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 160 of 2012. The case relates to explosion of land mines, in which police vehicle was badly damaged and several policemen were killed. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The impugned order shows that 13 po...
Vinod Kumar Gupta and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.1963of2012 1. VinodKumarGupta.2. Ashish@AshishKumarGupta. ... ... ... ... ...Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Party CORAM: THEHONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioners: Mr.AmitKumarDas,Advocate. FortheState: A.P .P. 04/17.09.2012 Attheveryoutset,itissubmittedthatthepetitionerno.1hasbeen arrested and therefore, prayer for anticipatory bail made on his behalf has becomeinfructuous. In view of the submission, prayer for bailmade on behalf of the petitionerno.1standsdismissedasinfructuousinMangoP.S.CaseNo.210of 2012,correspondingtoG.R.No.1259of2012,pendingintheCourtofS.D.J.M., Jamshedpur. It reveals from the written report that the petitioner with his associates after making preparation to commmit assault, committed house trespassandcausedassaulttotheinformantandhisfamilymembers. Itissubmittedthatthepetitionerandtheinformantareneighbours andtheoccurrencetookplaceduetoneighbouringdispute.Theinformanthas e...
Smt. Rajlakshmi Bagaria Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1880 of 2011 Smt. Rajlakshmi Bagaria Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate For the State : APP ----- 05/17.09.2012: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. Let this application be dismissed as withdrawn. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/...
Shri Sudhangsu Sekhar Jana (Er Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----- W.P. (S) No. 3200 of 2011 ----- Shri Sudhangsu Sekhar Jana .... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Nivas Roy, Advocate ----- Order No.05 Dated 17th September, 2012 Admit. No need to issue notice to the respondents. List this matter for final disposal in the month of December, 2012. (Prakash Tatia, C. J.) (Jaya Roy , J.) SI/Anit...
Md.Fahimul Haque Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C). No. 3992 of 2006 Md. Fahimul Haque Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ......... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Roy & J.C. to S.C.(L&C) ----------- I.A. NO. 2755 o07. /17.09.2012 By way of this interlocutory application, the legal heir of respondent no. 6 is sought to be substituted, since the respondent no.6 has died on 22.3.2010. The name of legal heir of respondent no. 6 is indicated in para 4 of the interlocutory application. Mr.Rohit Roy, learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent no. 6 does not object to the prayer of the petitioner for substitution of legal heir of respondent no. 6 and undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the substituted respondent no.6. In the circumstance, the person named in para 4 of the interlocutory application be substituted in place of the deceased respondent no. 6 by car...
Jai Pratap Singh ? Pappu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.693of2006 JaiPratapSingh@Pappu Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR FortheAppellant: Mr.A.K.Kashyap,Sr.Advocate Ms.LinaShakti FortheRespondent: Mr.AmreshKumar,A.P .P. 14/Dated:17 th September,2012 PerD.N.Patel,J I.A.No.2192of20111) Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that previously, on several occasions, prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court. Suffice it will be, if the criminal appeal is fixed for final hearing, because appellant is in jail since long.2) In view of these submissions and looking to the evidences on record, and, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court to the present appellant. Hence his prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected.3) I.A. No. 2192 of 2011 stands disposed of.4) Previously, on several occasions, prayer...
Chandra Mohan Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5240 of 2012 ------ Chandra Mohan Oraon . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Md.Kaisar Alam, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Sisai P.S. Case No. 51 of 2012 corresponding to G.R No. 358 of 2012 for the offence under Section 387 of the I.P.C. The case relates to demand of levy from the mobile phones as mentioned in the F.I.R itself. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no recovery of the mobile phones, as mentioned in the F.I.R, from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly prayed for bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for...
Biram Mumru and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.3601of2007 BiramMurmu&others ...Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhandandothers...Respondents CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :MrKantiKumarOjha,Adv. FortheRespondents :J.C.toS.C.II 04/17.09.2012 After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to pursue the remedy, if availableundertheLandAcquisitionAct,1894,asaccordingtothepetitioner theamountpaidinlieuofthelandacquiredforconstructionofPenamCoal MinesLtd.isinadequate. However, without observing anything on the merit, the writ petitionisdisposedofwiththeaforesaidliberty. (ApareshKumarSingh,J) jk...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »