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.
Durga Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. A.B.A.No. 4292 of 2012 ----- Durga Devi Petitioner. Versus State of Jharkhand Opp.party . ------ Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioner : Sri. A.K.Choudhary For the State : Sri. Tapas Kabiraj, APP ----- 02/05.02. 2013. Anticipatory bail petition filed by Durga Devi in connection with Deoghar Town P.S.case no. 356 of 2012 pending in the court of C.J.M. Deoghar, is moved by Sri A.k.Choudhary , learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Tapas Kabiraj, A.P.P. for the State. It is alleged that petitioner used force with a view to prevent informant and others from discharging their official duty. Under the said circumstance, I find that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Raman/...
Ashram Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 755 of 2013 Ashram Gope ........... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ...... ......... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ---- 2/ 05.02.2013 Heard the counsel for petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is accused in this case registered under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and his name has come only on the confessional statement of the co-accused Binay Topno has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in B.A. No.2657 of of 2011 vide order dated 29.6.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even in the confessional statement of the aforesaid co-accused, it has come that the petitioner is the order giver and except thi...
Panchu Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 542 of 2013 Panchu Oraon ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, 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 323,324,307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the informant are own brother and for some family dispute, petitioner has been implicated in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody from 30.11.2012 i.e. more than two months. Learned counsel for the state has opposed, but he has not disputed the aforesaid contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the period of custody of the petitioner i.e. ...
Management of M/S Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd Vs. State of Jhar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1546 of 2008 Management of M/s Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. & Anr. . Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : APP ----- 07/05.02.2013: Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that since the award passed in Reference Case, was not implemented, the Opp. Party No.2 filed a prosecution under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, but before the prosecution was launched, the petitioners had challenged the award passed against the petitioners before this Court wherein an order was passed under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, whereby the petitioners were directed to make payment to the worker. Pursuant to that, payments were made, but unfortunately, that writ application got dismissed after taking into the submission advanced on behalf of the other side, that the Company has gone in liqu...
Munna Ram Alias Munna Kumar Rvi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 634 of 2013 ---- Munna Ram @ Munna Kumar Rvi...... ..... .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ...... ......... ...............Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ---- 2/ 05.02.2013 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is accused in this case registered under Sections 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, Palamau. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated only because he is brother in law of another co-accused namely Mukesh Kumar Ravi and except that, there is no material against him. Counsel for the State pointed out that it has come in the impugned order that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the offence and furthermore, the petitioner is ...
Rajesh Sonar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 159 of 2013 Rajesh Sonar .... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr.Amit Kumar Sinha 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 Silli (Muri) PS case No. 75 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. It reveals that the petitioner was caught red handed while he was moving with stolen electric motor of the company of the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about five months and he has been falsely implicated in this case. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering nature of the offence and the period of detention of the petitioner in custody he (petitioner above named ) is di...
Mohar Singh Munda 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.6307 of 2011 Mohar Singh Munda . Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents Coram : The Honble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Mhato, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. S. Srivastava, Advocate J.C. to AAG ----- 6/05.02.2013 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to fix and pay his full pension and gratuity, which he is entitled to get after retirement. It has been stated that the petitioner retired from the post of Panchayat Sewak, Lapung Block, Ranchi long back on 30.09.2001, but till date, final pension has not been fixed. The petitioner has been paid only provisional pension so far. Learned J.C. to AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the pension papers were sent to the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand. However, the Accountant General found some deficiency and sent the papers. The respondents shall forward t...
Aftab Alam Alias Tinku Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 544 of 2013 Aftab Alam @ Tinku ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 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 20,22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the allegation made that from the possession of the petitioner 8 gm. heroine (brown sugar) have been recovered, but in the F.I.R. it is not stated whether from the exclusive possession of the petitioner the same has been recovered or not. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that it is very clear in the seizor list which has been annexed in this application, from the possession of Ravi Shankar Singh, Aftab Alam @ Tinku, Deep...
Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 320 of 2013 Ashok Kumar Verma ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Anuj Burman 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 420, 409, 467, 468, 120B, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 89 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 266 of 2008. The petitioner is the Cashier-cum-Assistant Manager of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kujra Branch, Lohardaga and during his tenure Rs. 1,45,00/- was withdrawn on the basis of forged cheques. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said amount has since been deposited by the other co-accused and another co- accused, who was the Assistant Manager, has been granted bail by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I a...
Neeraj Kr Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 472 of 2013 Neeraj Kr. Singh @ Neeraj Singh ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 03/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 109, 341, 342, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and he is in custody from 14.11.2012 i.e. more than two and half months. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but he has not disputed the period of custody of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the period of custody of the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »