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.
Biranchi Paswan Alias Biranchi Dosad Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.6411of2012 BiranchiPaswan@BiranchiDosad Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty ----- CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEALOKSINGH ----- ForthePetitioner :Mr.SwapanKumarSamanta,Advocate FortheState :Mr.AbhishekKumar,A.P.P. 02/01.09.2012 Presentapplicationismovedseekingregularbailinconnectionwith BengabadP.S.CaseNo.04of2012correspondingtoG.R.No.80of2012 registeredunderSection304BoftheIndianPenalCode. Accusedapplicantisthefatherinlawofthedeceased.Causeofdeath ofthedeceasedwasfoundtobeconsumptionofpoison. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexure 2, submitsthatpetitionerisanemployeeofHowrahMunicipalCorporationand wasondutyonthedateofincident.Hefurthersubmitsthatresidenceand mess of the petitioner was separate from the residence and mess of the deceasedandherhusband. Consideringthetotalityofthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,I directthatletpetitionerbereleasedonbailonfurnishingpersonalbondand twosuretiestothesatisfactionofthelea...
Binod Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.4646of2012 BinodSingh Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty ----- CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEALOKSINGH ----- ForthePetitioner :Mr.A.K.Kashyap,Sr.Advocate Mr.RakeshKumar,Advocate FortheState :Mr.SunilKumarDubey,A.P.P. FortheInformant :Mr.MohitPrakash,Advocate Mr.TarunKumar,Advocate 02/01.09.2012Learnedseniorcounsel,afterarguingforsometime,seekspermissionto withdraw this application at this stage with liberty to file afresh, after recordingofthestatementoftheComplainantsothatitmaybearguedthat there was no demand of dowry soon before the death and deceased has committedsuicidebecauseofacutedepressionsufferedbyher. Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaidliberty. (AlokSingh,J.) Manish...
Sri Ram Krishna Missan Vs. Chandra Lall JaIn ? Chander La
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI C.M.P.No.160of2006 SriRamKrishnaMission. .Appellant. Versus ChandraLalJain@ ChanderLalJain&Ors. .....Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI FortheAppellant : Mr.A.K.Yadav,Advocate FortheRespondents :08. 01.09.2012: It has been submitted that repeated steps have been takenbytheappellantforserviceofnoticeonRespondentNos.1 and 4, but the same could not be served on the said respondents.Therespondentshaveknowledgeaboutthiscase, buttheyareintentionallyavoidingtheirappearance.Nowitis not possible to serve notice on them in usual course. The appellant, in such circumstance, may be permitted to serve noticeonthembyadvertisementina newspaper,whichhas widecirculationinthelocality. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedtherecord.Fromtherecord,itappearsthatearliersteps weretakenforserviceofnoticeonRespondentNos.1and4,but thesamecouldnotbeserved.Ifindsubstanceinthesubmission oflearnedcounselfortheappellant. Inviewofthe above, the...
Chhote Lal Sah and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. A.B.A. No. 2325 of 2012 Chhote Lal Sah & Others Petitioners -V e r s u s- State of Jharkhand & Another Opposite Parties CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Petitioners : - Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, Advocate. For the State : - A.P.P. 02/01.09.2012 The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1860 of 2011 registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, now which is pending in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the papers. Issue notice to the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant both by Registered Post with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one w...
Sunita Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2483 of 2012 Vijay Uraon @ Vijayanand Bhagat ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 03/01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was cleaning the bush in the forest area within the plot No.435. It is contended that the petitioner is the owner of the plot No. 436 and he was not cleaning any part of the plot No. 435, but he was cleaning the part of the plot No.436. He has further submitted that the authority concerned has not made any measurement of the area of the plot numbers to verify whether the petitioner has actually clean...
M/S Sidhi Coal Carrier Pvt.Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 6203 of 2011 M/s Sidhi Coal Carrier Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioners - Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the Resp. Nos.1 & 2 - Mr. T.N. Mishra, CGC For the C.C.L. - Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate ----- 6/01.09.2012 The petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 24.7.2010 passed by the respondent No.4 directing the concerned authority to stop the petitioners' work under the existing contract. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the letter dated 28.7.2010 whereby the aforesaid order has been informed to the petitioners, and also for quashing letter dated 10/12.8.2010 issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the request for allotment of work to the petitioner No.1 has been refused. The petitioners have also prayed for direction on the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to award fre...
Sone Lal Das Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. A.B.A. No. 2329 of 2012 Sone Lal Das .. Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand . . ..Opp. Party(s) CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai For the State : A.P.P. 2/1.9.2012 Present anticipatory bail application has been filed under sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Koderma P.S.Case No. 289 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 595 of 2011 dated 1.7.2011 registered under sections 409/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in which the petitioner has reason to believe of being arrested by the police. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and perused the papers attached to this petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that co-accused namely Vivekanand Choudhary has been granted anticipatory ba...
Bitu Ram Alias Bitu Dulai Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6190 of 2012 Bittu Ram @ Bittu Dulai @ Bittu Duali Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- 2/01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 414/34 of Indian Penal Code. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the period of custody, let the above-named petitioner 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 Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 41 of 2012 arising out of G.R. No. 1348 of 2012. (R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT...
Kishore Kumar Mahato Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI --- A.B.A. No. 2456 of 2012 --- Kishore Kumar Mahato ... ... ... ... Petitioner --Versus-- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Kabita Mahato alias Pemola Devi ... ... Opp. Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kumar Burnwal, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate --- 2/ 01.09.2012 Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite party no.2 have submitted that the parties are ready to compromise the matter and settle their dispute. Accordingly, I refer this matter to the Conciliator, JHALSA, Ranchi for conciliation proceeding. Both the parties will appear before the Conciliator, JHALSA, Ranchi on 20th September, 2012. Conciliator, JHALSA, Ranchi, after completion of the conciliation proceeding, will submit his report on or by 5th November, 2012. Put up this case along with the report of the Conciliator on 7th November, 2012. Till that date, police will n...
Premanand Mahato Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6196 of 2012 Premanand Mahato Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- 2/01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this would be the fourth attempt as earlier on three occasions, prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court and that while rejecting prayer for bail lastly on 23.9.2011, order was passed that the trial be concluded expeditiously but the situation is the same as it was there on 23.9.2011, as the Investigating Officer and the doctor are not turning up for giving evidence and thereby the petitioner has been in cust...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »