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.
Paras Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1038 of 2011 Paras Kumar ............................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another..Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr.Jitendra S.Singh For the State :.A.P.P 2.17.9.12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 8.1.2002, the petitioner has been alleged to have committed offence under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act but the case was lodged on 10.1.2005, upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was taken on 7.2.2005 and thereby the order taking cognizance is hit by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no.2 to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and/or, if possible, be not disposed of at the admission stage itself, for which requisites for issuance of notice under registered cover with A/D must be filed within one week. L...
RiyazuddIn Ansari Alias Riyajyn Ansari Alias Raju Mian Vs. the State o ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 5733 of 2012 Riyazuddin Ansari @ Riyajun Ansari @ Raju Mian .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, 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 Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26 of the Arms Act, in connection with T. Tanger P.S. Case No. 30 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 210 of 2012. The petitioner was apprehended on 14.5.2012 and from his possession, one loaded pistol and one cartridge were recovered. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Riyazuddin Ansari @ Riyajun Ansari @ Raju Mian, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail b...
Md.Usman Gani and ors Vs. Mangi ? Mangri Oraon and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.320 of 2010 Md. Usman Gani & Ors. petitioners -Versus- Mangi @ Mangri Oraon & Ors. .... Respondents. ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : ------ I.A. No.303 o6. 17.09.2012: In this I.A. the petitioners-applicants have prayed for condonation of 107 days' delay in filing C.M.P. No.320 of 2010. It has been stated that the C.M.P. was dismissed for default on 26.2.2010 for non-appearance. The petitioners could not know about the date of hearing of the C.M.P. as inadvertently he could not mark the case in the list. The petitioners came to know subsequently that the C.M.P.No.80/2009 stood dismissed for default. Immediately thereafter, step was taken and the petition for restoration of the said C.M.P.No.80/2009 was filed, but in the meanwhile there was already delay of 107 days in filing the said petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the p...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.1754of2012 VijayKumar. ... ... ... ... ... ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.2. Ravi Shankar Gupta. ... ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties CORAM: THEHONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioner: Mr.RahulKumar,Advocate. FortheState: A.P .P. 06/17.09.2012 It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner realized Rs. 40,000/ from the complainant on the pretext to correct and reduce the bill amount. It is submitted that due to nonpayment, the electric supply was disconnectedwithinthepremisesofcomplainanton28.02.2009andnoticefor recovery was served. Thereafter present petition has been filed with false allegation. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposedtheprayer. Considering the facts and circumstances appearing from the complaint and the documents placed before me, the petitioner is directed to surrenderbeforethecourtbelowwithinthreeweeksfromtodayandifhedoes so he shall be released on bail on furnishing b...
Basanti Kumari ? Basanti Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2008 Basanti Kumari @ Basanti Devi..Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand .Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner :Mr.Deepak Kumar For the State :A.P.P 4.17.9.12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Jainagar P.S. case no.20 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 302, 201, 328, 314 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the four accused persons. In course of investigation, hand of the petitioner was also suspected by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the Investigating Officer got the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner but ultimately, the Investigating Officer did not find any culpability about this petitioner and submitted final form exonerating him from the accusation whereas charge sheet was submitted against other accused persons but the court took cognizance of the offence not only against the persons, who were charge sheeted but also against this pet...
Milon Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5736 of 2012 ------ Milon Devi . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Din Dayal Saha, 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 Rajmahal (Radhanagar) P.S Case No.129 of 2012 corresponding to G.R Case No.236 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case appears to have been lodged for kidnapping the daughter of the informant who has married to the son of this petitioner. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim. It appears from the complaint petition, on the basis of which, the police case was lodged, that the victim had herself gone alongwith her husband who is the son of this petitioner and thereafter, she had become traceless. The petitioner was not pre...
Sunil Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5573 of 2012 ------ Sunil Kumar . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 260 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 717 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 461, 379 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to land scam in Deoghar, in which, necessary documents regarding to scam were kept in the record room by the Deputy Commissioner, which were stolen away. In view of the fact that it transpired that rupees twenty lakhs was agreed to be given to the petitioner by the Co-accused, who was the main beneficiary, for committing the theft of the records and making them to disappear and the petitione...
Md Shamim and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6197 o1. Md. Shamim 2. Md. Minhaj 3. Md. Seraj Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Dayal, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- 2/01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The petitioners are accused in a case instituted under Sections 341/323/307/504/34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitioners, who happened to be the father and step brothers of the informant, have been alleged to have made an attempt on the life of the informant but keeping in view the injury sustained by the informant, these petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and moreover, the parties have got their dispute settled amicably. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, all three...
Bindu Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 287 of 2002 (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.5.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 1995. Bindu Ram --- --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- --- Respondent For the Appellant: Mr. Ram Prakash Singh (A.C) For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Choudhary, APP PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR Per D.N. Patel, J.The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj on 21.5.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 1995 whereby the present appellant/accused was mainly punished under section 302 of the I.P.C. for life imprisonment.2. It is the case of prosecution that the incident has taken place on 9th of April 1995 at about 5 P.M.. P.W. 4 is the informant who has informed the police on 10th of April, 1995 at about 2 A.M...
Firoz Ansari and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. A.B.A. No. 2388 o1. Firoz Ansari 2.Polina Hemrom .. Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand . . ..Opp. Party(s) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Sahani For the State : A.P.P. 2/1.9.2012 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this anticipatory bail application the petitioner No.1 Firoz Ansari has been arrested and as such his prayer for anticipatory bail has become infructuous. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw the bail application of the petitioner No.1 Firoz Ansari. Permission, as sought for, is granted. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of as withdrawn as it has become infructuous, so far as the petitioner No.1 Firoz Ansari is concerned. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has only confined to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.2 Polina Hemrom. Present anticipatory bail application has been filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »