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.
Madan Mehta and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.4739of2011 MadanMehta&Ors. .Petitioners. Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ....Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI ForthePetitioners: Mr.A.K.Das,Advocate FortheState : J.C.toSr.S.C.II ForUniversity : Mr.A.K.Mehta,Advocate 05/05.02.2013: The petitioners have prayed for directions on the respondents to modify the notification dated 29th December, 2003 and consider their seniority from the date of their initial appointment, regularise their services with effect from 20th August, 1993, and pay the arrears of salary with effect from November, 1992, as has been paid to other similarly situated employeesinthelightofthedirectionoftheHon'bleSupreme Court in W.P.(C) No.409 of 1991 and Contempt Application No.280of1993. Ithasbeensubmittedthatthepetitionersalongwithothers were initially appointed in Janta Shiv Ratri College and Yodh SinghNamdhariMahilaCollege,Daltonganjwaybackin1981 1986 on temporary basis. The said colleges were affiliat...
Harendra Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 337 of 2013 Harendra Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee 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 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Rail Thana Tatanagar (Chakulia) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 45 of 2012. The case relates to the murder of the daughter of the petitioner himself and the case was instituted against unknown upon the information given by the petitioner, as the dead body of the deceased was found on railway track. Subsequently, it appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the allegation that the deceased daughter of the petitioner was having affair with someone which was ...
Meghu Rai and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.654of2013 1.MeghuRai 2.AnilRai .... .... . Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioners :Mrs.VandanaSingh,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionersandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioners are accused in this case registered under Sections457/380/511oftheIndianPenalCodethoughitiswrongly mentionedintheimpugnedorderasSection411oftheIndianPenal CodeinsteadofSection511oftheIndianPenalCode. Counselappearingforthepetitionerhassubmittedthatthe petitionerisincustodysince28th October,2012i.e.morethanthree months. CounselappearingfortheStatehasnotdisputedtheperiod ofcustodyofthepetitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioners, the petitioners, Meghu Rai and Anil Rai are directed to be released on bail, on furnishingbailbondofRs.10,000/(Rs.Tenthousand)eachwithtwo sureti...
Jhotan Bhuian Alias Pahlad Bhuian and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.194of2013 1.JhotanBhuian@PahladBhuian 2.BinodBhuian 3.BishwanathBhuian 4.BabluBhuian Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioners :Mr.SanjayKumarTiwari,Advocate FortheState :APP 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionersareaccusedinacaseregisteredunderSections447, 323and302/34oftheIndianPenalCode. ItisallegedintheF.I.R.thattheaccusedpersonscommittedhouse trespassandcausedassaulttotheinformantbymeansoflathietc.Incourseof scufflewhenthedaughteroftheinformant,whowasaged7yearsintervened, shewasthrownawaybytheaccusedGirwarBhuianasaresultofwhichshe sustainedinjuryanddied. It is submitted that specific allegation is against accused Girwar Bhuianandnotagainstthepresentaccused. However,ingredientsofsection 302aswellas304I.P.C.isabsentwhichisapparentfromtheF.I.R.itself. Learnedcounsel,appearing for the State opposedthe prayerfor bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circ...
Rupesh Kumar Jha Alias Pappu Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No.28 of 2013 Rupesh Kumar Jha @ Papu Jha. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. ---------- 04/ 05.02.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 172 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.1003 of 2012, pending in the Court of Miss Kalpana Hazarika, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka. It is a case of dowry death in which the deceased-daughter of the informant was killed within one year of her marriage. It is submitted that the informant has raised allegation against other accused, who were present in the house on the date of occurrence. He has not stated that his daughter was killed by this petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner worked at Gaya and he was not present in ...
Sanjay Kachhap Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.10446of2012 with B.A.No.56of2013 with B.A.No.13of2013 AmritKachhap Petitioner(InB.A.No.10446of2012) SanjayKachhap Petitioner(InB.A.No.56of2013) JoginderOraon Petitioner(InB.A.No.13of2013) Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioners :M/sGaneshPathak&S.K.Upadhyay,Advocates FortheState :APP 03/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 302/34oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection27oftheArmsAct. Itrevealsthatthehusbandoftheinformantwaskilledwhenhe wasreturningfromBlockOffice.Theinformanthasraisedsuspicionagainstthe petitionersandotheraccusedwithwhomhewashavingpreviousenmity. ItissubmittedthatoneofthecoaccusedDeepakSinghhasbeen grantedbailbyaBenchofthisCourtvideB.A.No.493of2013. Thereisno direct or circumstantial evidence available in the case diary against these petitioners. Learned counsel of the State submitted that the movement of accusedp...
Gulzar MaIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4281 of 2012 Gulzar Mian ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amitabh, A.P.P. For the Complainant Mr. Atanu Banerjee ........ 2/05.02.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Gulzar Mian is moved by Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the complainant. From perusal of statement of complainant I find that there is general and omnibus allegation against all accused persons. Complainant stated to a question put by the Court that she has been assaulted only by her husband. Petitioner is father-in-law of complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below on or before 14th of February 2013 and in ...
Durgi Y Adav Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 745 of 2013 Durgi Yadav ........... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ...... ......... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rashmi Kumari (A.C.) 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 323, 379, 498(A), 352 of the I.P.C., pending in the court of J.M. 1st Class, Koderma. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody from 5.11.2012 i.e. three months. It is also submitted that he is ready to take back his wife and is ready to keep her with proper respect and dignity. Counsel for the State opposed but not disputed the period of custody of the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and also considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner, namely Durgi Yadav is directed to be released o...
Rampal Oraon and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 659 o1. Rampal Oraon 2. Fagua Oraon @ Fagu Oraon .... Petitioners Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr ..... .... Opposite parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the State : Mr.S.S. Prasad , APP Re: I.A. No. 112 o9. 05.02.2013: I.A. No. 112 of 2013 has been filed for restoration of this application as against O.P. No.2. It is submitted that petitioners could not ascertain the fresh address of O.P. No. 2 within the time stipulated by order dated 30.7.2012, thus the order has not been complied within time. Accordingly, it is submitted that the application be restored as against O.P. No. 2 and petitioners be given an opportunity to file requisites for notice on O.P. No.2. In view of the submission made in the Interlocutory Application, the same is allowed and ABA No. 659 of 2012 is restored to its original file so far it relates to O.P. No.2. Petitioner is directed to file requisites for...
Bijendra Singh Alias Birendra Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 186 of 2013 Bijendar Singh @ Birender Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Shiv Shankar 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 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 85 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 3597 of 2009. The impugned order shows that the petitioner was on bail and his bail bond was cancelled on 05.09.2011 due to misuse of privilege of bail. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered in the Court on 13.12.2012 and since then he is in custody. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Bijendar Singh @ Birender Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »