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.
Sunita Kumari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI B. A. No. 837 of 2013 Sunita Kumari ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu For the Opp. Party : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. 2/05.02.2013 Bail application filed by petitioner Sunita Kumari is moved by Sri Anil Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional PP. for the State. Earlier bail prayer of petitioner rejected on 13.07.2012 with observation that trial court shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of order. It appears that petitioner, who is a lady, is in custody from 17th of February 2010. It is submitted that up till now, only three witnesses examined, out of eight charge-sheet witnesses. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of conclusion of present case in near future. In view of...
Ashok Pandey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.208of2013 AshokPandey Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.S.K.Murthy,Advocate FortheState :APP 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. The petitioner is accused in a case registered under Sections 379/411oftheIndianPenalCode. Itrevealsthatstolenbatterywasrecoveredfromtheshopofthe presentpetitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has already remained in jail custodyformorethantwomonthsandhehassufficientlybeenpunishedforthe offencealleged. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Consideringthenatureoftheoffenceaswellasperiodofcustody ofthepetitioner,heisdirectedtobereleasedonbailonfurnishingbailbondof Rs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousand)withtwosuretiesofthelikeamounteachto thesatisfactionoftheCourtofSriS.K.Mishra,JudicialMagistrate,Giridihin connection with Deori P.S. Case No.175 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2700of2012. (D.N.Upadhya...
Chandrika Mehta Alias Chandrika Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.224of2013 ChandrikaMehta@ChandrikaMahto Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.JitendraShankarSingh,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionerisaccusedinconnectionwithHussainabadP.S.Case No.120 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.1721 of 2012 registered under Sections147,148,149,302&120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandSection27of theArmsActwhichispendingintheCourtoflearnedChiefJudicialMagistrate, Palamau. Itisallegedthatthepetitionerandhisassociateskilledthehusband oftheinformantbycausinginjurytohimbymeansoffirearms. Itissubmittedthatthedeceasedhadsustainedonlytwogunshot injurieswhichaccordingtotheF.I.R.,wascausedbyotheraccusedpersons. Learnedcounsel,appearing for the State opposedthe prayerfor bail. ThepetitionerisnamedintheF.I.R.Hewashavingfirearmswhich heusedatthetimeofcommissionoftheoffence. Consideringtheaforesaidfactsandcircumstanceso...
Savitri Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 230 of 2013 Savitri Devi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Anil Kumar 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 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Paton P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 798 of 2011 (S. T. No. 58 of 2012). The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and to have committed her dowry death. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 22.09.2011 in B. A. No. 6672 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail. In the facts and cir...
Dharmi Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.215of2013 DharmiDevi Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.MukeshBihariLal,Advocate FortheState :APP 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionerisaccusedinacaseregisteredunderSections498A, 376&511oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection3/4oftheDowryProhibition Act. Itrevealsthattheinformantwassubjectedtotortureandtreated with cruelty for want of more dowry. Her fatherinlaw tried to establish physicalrelationwithher. Itissubmittedthatthepetitionerismotherinlawwhereasfather inlaw against whom there is serious allegation, has been granted bail by a BenchofthisCourtvideB.A.No.8861of2012. Thehusbandhasalsobeen grantedbailtodayitselfvideB.A.No.576of2013byaBenchofthisCourt. Learnedcounsel,appearing for the State opposedthe prayerfor bail. Consideringthefactthatthehusbandandfatherinlawhavebeen grantedbail,abovenamedpetitionerisalsodirectedto bereleasedonbailon furnishingbailb...
Santosh Sah Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.725of2013 SantoshSah .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM :HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.R.S.Majumdar,Sr.Advocate Mr.RajeshKumar,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearingfortheState. PetitionerisanaccusedinthiscaseregisteredunderSections 304B/201/34oftheIndianPenalCode. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the othertwocoaccusednamelyRamBrichaSahandGitaDevi,whoarefather inlaw and motherinlaw of the victim lady, have been granted bail by anotherBenchofthisCourtinB.A.No.6651of2012videorderdated21st September,2012.Itisalsocontendedthatthepetitionerisincustodysince 29thSeptember,2010i.e.twoyearsandfourmonths.Itisfurthercontended thatoutofseventeenwitnessesonlysevenwitnesseshavebeenexamined. Counsel appearing for the State has not disputed the contentionsmadebythecounselforthepetitioner. Considering the ...
Binod Kumar Rawani Alias Binod Rawani Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.217of2013 BinodKumarRawani@BinodRawani Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.SomeshwarRoy,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. The petitioner is accused in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.1254 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.6511 of 2011 registered under Sections407&120BoftheIndianPenalCodewhichispendingintheCourtof learnedChiefJudicialMagistrate,Ranchi. ItrevealsfromtheF.I.R.thatavancarryingcashfromthebankwas looted by the miscreants. In course of investigation one of the coaccused disclosedthenameofthepresentpetitioneranddescribedhisinvolvementin thecrime.OnsearchasumofRs.3,50,000/wasrecoveredfromthehouseof thepetitionerandhewasalsoidentifiedintheT.I.P. Itissubmittedthatthepetitionerwasnotatallpresentatthetime ofrecoveryofcashfromhishouse. TheT.I.P.washeldafteralongdelayand thereforeitisnotareliableevidence. Thepetitionerisinja...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›