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.
Shiblal Murmu and ors. 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...
Deepak Das Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.709of2013 DeepakDas .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.K.P.Choudhary,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections498A/341/323/494/384/406/34oftheIndianPenalCode. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that thoughtheF.I.R.hasbeenlodgedundertheaforesaidSectionsbutthe Court below has taken cognizance only under Sections 498A/341/323/394/494oftheIndianPenalCode.Itisalsosubmitted thatthereisnospecificallegationagainstthepetitioner.Petitioneris thehusbandandheisincustodysince26.09.2012i.e.morethanfour months. CounselappearingfortheStatehasnotdisputedtheperiod ofcustodyofthepetitioner. Consideringthesubmissionsmadebyboththepartiesand andconsideringtheperiodofcustodyofthepetitioner,thepetitioner, abovenamed,isdirec...
Kallu Ram Rawani and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 462 o1. Kallu Ram Rawani 2. Usha Devi ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioners :Mr. S. K. Uuadhyay For the State :A. P.P. ----- 03/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3827 of 2012, S. T. No. 749 of 2012. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and there is allegation against them to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and to have committed her dowry death. The impugned order shows that ante mortem ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to releas...
Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 4277 of 2012 Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Singh .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr ..... .... Opposite parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh For the State : Mr. A.K. Pandey , APP For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. M.B. Lal 2/05.02.2013: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Singh is moved by Sri Naresh Prasad Singh and opposed by Sri A.K. Pandey, learned Additional P.P. and Sri M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. Petitioner disputes that he is legally married husband of the complainant. It then appears from the statement of complainant on S.A. that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons. No overt act alleged against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender int he court below by 14.2.2013 and in that event th...
Raj Kumar Vs. Parvati Devi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI F.ANo.199of2009 RajKumar Vs.ParvatiDevi With F.ANo.183of2010 ParwatiKumari@ParwatiDevi Vs.RajKumar CORAM: HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEALOKSINGH FortheAppellantInF.ANo.199/2009:Mr.SumeetGadodia FortheRespondentsInF.ANo.199/2009:Mr.D.K.Prasad FortheAppellantInF.ANo.183/2010:Mr.D.K.Prasad FortheRespondentsInF.ANo.183/2010:Mr.SumeetGadodia OrderNo.16 Dated5th February,2013 Learnedcounselfortherespondentsubmits thatthoughhe has moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrte, seeking permission to withdraw the complaint, but on that applicationnoorderhasbeenpassed. LearnedcounselfortheappellantsubmitsthatthisCourtmay pass order quashing the criminal proceeding because of the compromise arrived at between the parties by exercising power underArticle226thoughitisafirstappeal. Toenlightenonthislegalissue,learnedcounselfortheparties aregiventime.Putupthesecaseson11.2.2013. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Alok Singh, J.) dey...
Misbahul Hasan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.3008of2011 MisbahulHasan. .Petitioner. Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ....Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI ForthePetitioner : Mr.RajivaSharma,Advocate FortheState : J.C.toSr.S.C.II 05/05.02.2013: Thepetitionerisadisabledperson.Hehadappliedforthe postofBlockCoordinatorpursuanttotheadvertisementdated 27thSeptember,2006.Aftercompletionofprocessandinterview, hewasdeclaredsuccessful.Theappointmentletterdated12th October, 2006 was, thereafter, issued to the petitioner on contractbasis.Initially,thetermwasforFinancialYear200708. Thepetitionerdischargedhisdutysincerelyandhisserviceswere appreciated.Onthebasisthereof,hewasallowedtoworkfor furtherperiod. Suddenly,byletterdated19thFebruary,2011theservicesof the petitioner was terminated without assigning any reason. It hasbeensubmittedthatseveralothers,whoweregiventhesaid postoncontractbasis,havebeenallowedtocontinue,whereas the petitioner has been discriminated against and his ser...
Anil Kumar Khemka Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L). No. 3973 of 2011 Anil Kumar Khemka Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N.Das For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P. II ----------- I.A. NO. 3309 OF 201.07/05.02.2013 The petitioner has preferred this interlocutory application for taking steps under substituted service of notice upon the respondent no. 4 since notices could not be served upon him despite twice attempt being made earlier under both process. In that view of the matter, office is directed to issue draft of the publication for substituted service upon respondent no. 4 within period of 1 week. The petitioner, thereafter, will take steps for its publication and file an affidavit in respect of the same after 3 weeks. I.A. No. 3309 of 2012 stands disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty...
Anisur Rahman Alias Anizur Rahman and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P(C) No. 9 of 2013 Anisur Rahman@Anizur Rahman &Ors.................................. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand &Ors . ...............................Respondents CORAM :- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioners : Mr. V.Shivnath. Sr.Advocate For the State-Respondents : Mr.V.K.Prasad .2/5.2.2013. The present petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing the order dated 5.3.2012(Annexure-4) passed in S.A.R Case No. 38 of 2008-09 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation Act-cum- Deputy Collector Land Reforms,Ranchi whereby the application filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 under section 71(A) of C.N.T.Act has been allowed ex-parte without hearing the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order has been passed ex-parte without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Even no notice has be...
Kurban Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No.239 of 2013 Kurban Ansari. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 02/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 376/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This case has been registered on the basis of a Complaint filed by Heena Khatoon. It is alleged that Nurullah Ansari @ Saheb Ansari, who happens to be the son of the petitioner had committed rape on the informant and continued physical relation on the promise to marry her. When the accused persons did not agree to accept the informant, this case has been lodged. It is submitted that the petitioner is the father of accused-Nurullah Ansari and he cannot be held liable for the offence of commission of rape which is allegedly committed by his son. The petitioner has already remained ...
Vivek Vishal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No.112 of 2013 Vivek Vishal. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 02/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 467/468/471/420/406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner and his companion had insisted the informant to invest money with Saanchi Infrastructure India Limited and on such investment they would get good return. The informant received one installment in his account and one installment in the account of wife but later the accused persons refused to return the amount and misappropriated the money. It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 41,000/- in the account of informant and his wife and he has also remained in custody for more than three months. Counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »