Jharkhand Court February 2013 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.
FranklIn Baxla Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6460 of 2010 Franklin Baxla .. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioner - Miss. Nehala Sharmin For the Respondents - M/s J.C to S.C-II, A.K.Mehta ----- 3/5.2.2013 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents for payment of the difference of salary on U.G.C scale for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. It has been submitted that the petitioner is at present Reader in History subject in St. Xavier College, Ranchi. The petitioner, who has been working against the sanctioned post, is entitled to get his salary on the UGC scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in accordance with the circular issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand by Letter No. 356 dated 13.11.2008.. The petitioner, however, was not given salary on the said scale. The petitioner filed representations before th...
Md MohsIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 120 of 2013 Md Mohsin .... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr.Mahesh Tiwari For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is accused in connection with Pakur (T) PS case No. 124 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 420/409/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner in connivance with Ahilya Devi, Block Education Extension Officer, lifted 159 quintals of rice under Mid-day Meal Scheme and the rice so lifted was misappropriated. It is submitted that the petitioner has never signed as M. Biswas for lifting rice. Further more, main accused Ahilya Devi has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide B A No. 9384 of 2012. Petitioner is in custody for more than two months. Learned counsel for the State has...
Jagdish Paswan Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 436 of 2013 Jagdish Paswan ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : M/s Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 03/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 27.11.2012 i.e. more than two months. It is also submitted that though the petitioner has received show cause notice, just on the date on which he was asked to appear before the authority, therefore, he could not appear. Learned counsel for the State has opposed but he has not disputed the period of custody of the petitioner. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner i.e...
Md Saddam Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 167 of 2013 Md. Saddam Ansari ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Pratiush Lala For the State :A. P.P. ----- 03/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 941 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3689 of 2012. The case relates to recovery of stolen articles from the co- accused persons. Petitioner's name has come in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Md. Saddam Ansari 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 lear...
Mohan Yadav Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No.113 of 2013 Mohan Yadav. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 03/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 452/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to commit rape on the informant but he was caught red handed by the relatives of the informant and he was handed over to police. It is submitted that due to neighbouring dispute, this case has been lodged with false allegation. No such incident ever took place. Furthermore, the petitioner has already remained in custody for about 5 months. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering the submission as well as detention of the petitioner in Jail custody, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (...
Ramroop Gupta ? Ramrup Gupta and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 653 o1. Ramroop Gupta @ Ramrup Gupta 2.Smt. Usha Gupta 3.Abhishek Kumar Gupta @ Abhishek Kumar ..... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Shrawan Thakur . Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. S. Mahto, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. ----- 05 /05.02.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.12.2010 passed in Complaint case being C.P. Case No.1111 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint case in which the cognizance of the of...
Kamal Akhtar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 343 of 2013 Kamal Akhtar ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. M. Sohail Anwar (Sr. Advocate) For the State :A. P.P. ----- 04/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No. 293 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 815 of 2012. There is allegation against the son of the petitioner to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and it appears that the petitioner has been made accused in this case only being the father of the main accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Kamal Akhtar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand...
Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 699 of 2002 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 640 of 2002 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th September 2002 and 17th September, 2002 respectively passed by Sri Binay Kumar Sinha, Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 278 of 1993/244 of 2001. .......... Sushil Murmu ...... Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 699 of 2002) 1. Shiblal Murmu 2. Jadu Murmu 3. Aashu Murmu ...... Appellants (In Cr. A. No. 640 of 2002) Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent (In both the appeals) ------------- For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate (In Cr. A. No. 699 of 2002), Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate (In Cr. A. No. 640 of 2002). For the State : Mr. T.N. Verma, APP. ............. PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------- Dated 5th February, 2013 Per D.N. Patel,J.:1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned...
Bharti Rajak and ors Vs. Meena Devi and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P(C) No. 4394 of 2012 Bharti Rajak and Ors .................................. Petitioners Versus Meena Devi &Ors . ...............................Respondents CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioners :- P..S.A.S. Pathi For the Respondents :- Mr. Shamim Akhtar .2/5.2.2013. The present petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.6.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division) I, Jamshedpur in Title suit No. 67 of 2000 whereby the petition filed for recalling the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as defendants prior to 10.12.2010 in order to cross examine them has been rejected by the court below. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents. Perused the impugned order as well as other material placed on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that ...
Annu Alias Md Annu Alias Anwar Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 564 of 2013 Annu @ Md. Annu @ Anwar Ansari ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 461, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 08.11.2012 i.e. nearly three months. Learned counsel for the State has opposed but he has not disputed the period of custody of the petitioner. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner i.e. nearly three months, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »