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.
Bahadur Turi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.197of2013 BahadurTuri Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.KumarAmit,Advocate FortheState :APP 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionerisaccusedinacaseregisteredunderSections413 and414/34oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection33ofIndianForestAct. ItisallegedintheF.I.R.thatthepetitionerwasindulgedinrunning illegalminingandhehadengagedlabourersforthesaidpurpose. Itissubmittedthatthepetitionerisinjailcustodysincemorethan sixmonthsandhehassufficientlybeenpunishedfortheoffencealleged. Learnedcounsel,appearing for the State opposedthe prayerfor bail. Consideringtheperiodofdetentionofthepetitionerinjailcustody, heisdirectedto bereleasedonbailonfurnishingbailbondofRs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfactionoftheCourtofAddl.SessionsJudgeII,Bermoinconnectionwith SessionsTrialNo.270of2012arisingoutofNawadihP.S.CaseNo.73of20...
Anil Ram Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3999 o1. Anil Ram 2.Chhathani Devi ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.-2 For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amitabh, A.P.P. ........ 5/05.02.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners Anil Ram and Chhathani Devi is moved by Sri Manoj Kumar No.-2 learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Amitabh, learned Additional PP. for the State. From perusal of statement of victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., at paragraph No. 120 of the case diary, it appears that she eloped with co-accused Ranjit Ram @ Chhotu out of her own sweet will. No allegation made against these petitioners. Medical report reveals that victim is aged about 19 years. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court belo...
Laxman Singh Alias Munnu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2696 of 2012 Laxman Singh @ Munnu ..... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amitabh, A.P.P. ----- 02 /05.02.2013. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to raise all the points which have been raised in this application at an appropriate stage. Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/...
Prem Sagar Sehgal Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 552 of 2013 --- Prem Sagar Sehgal --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & another --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mr.S.L.Agrawal &Mr.Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocates For the State: Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, SC (L&C) --- 02/ 05.02.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of letter no. 1558 dated 9th of October 2012 (Annexure-10) issued by the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, whereby the request of the petitioner for regularization of the construction has been refused under section 4(C) of the Jharkhand Regularization of Unauthorized / Deviated Construction Through Regularization Fee under Urban Areas Act, 2011. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps in view of paper publication contained at annexure-12 which stipulates that...
Mehi Lal Manjhi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.613 of 2012 with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 615 of 2012 with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 472 of 2012 Mehi Lal Manjhi Appellant (in Cr. Appeal No. 613 of 2012) Amir Lal Manjhi .... .... Appellant (in Cr. Appeal No. 615 of 2012) Chhotelal Manjhi .... .... Appellants (in Cr. Appeal No. 472 of 2012) Versus State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party (In all the three cases) ------ CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------ For the Appellants: M/s Dilip Kumar Jaiswal For the Respondents: A.P.P. ----- th 10/Dated 4 February1. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 613 and 615 of 2012 are admitted.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that aforesaid two appeals are filed respectively by Original accused no. 1 and original accused no. 2 of S.T. No. 2 of 2009, whereas original accused no.3 of the said case, namely Chhotelal Manjhi has filed Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 472 of 2012, which has already been admitted vide orde...
Jai Kishore Prasad Alias Jay Kishore Prasasd Vs. the State of Jharkhan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 2990 of 2012 Jai Kishore Prasad @ Jay Kishore Prasad .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr ..... .... Opposite parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar For the State : Mr. S.K. Dubey , APP For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Mahesh Tewari 5/05.02.2013: Call for the photocopy of original injury report from the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Sector IV P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 ( G.R. No. 705 of 2012) and put up this case after receipt of the same. In the meantime, the interim order dated 08.11.2012 shall continue. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Heera Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.2418 o1. Heera Lal Jaiswal @ Heeralal Prasad 2. Reeta Devi 3. Sandeep Jaiswal 4. Chanchal Devi @ chanchala Jaiswal ..............Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another..................Opposite Parties CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners :Mr.Anil Kumar For the State :A.P.P 5.5.2.13. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and/or, if possible, disposed of at the admission stage itself, for which requisites under registered cover with A/D must be filed within a week. Let this matter be listed on appearance of opposite party no.2. Till then, further proceeding in C.Case no.1527 of 2011, pending in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh shall remain stayed so far the petitioners are concerned. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/...
Md Khurshid Alam Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10206 of 2012 Md. Khurshid Alam ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner :Mr. Jasvindar Kaur/Mazumdar 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 467, 468, 471, 419, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 910 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 3731 of 2011. The petitioner is alleged to have taken loan from the bank to the tune of Rs. 7.05 lakhs on the basis of the forged documents and the dues upon the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. 9 lakhs and odd. Earlier by order dated 16.03.2012 in B. A. No. 1711 of 2012, the petitioner was given the liberty to deposit 2.25 lakhs in the bank whereupon, he was to be released on provisional bail for two months in order to enable hi...
Balbir Singh Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1373 of 2011 Balbir Singh . Petitioner Versus JSEB & Ors. ...Respondents Coram : The Honble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kr.Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. Banani Verma & Rajan Raj, Advocates ----- 8/05.02.2013 Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent for fixation and payment of pension. According to the respondents, the petitioner had to deposit Rs.64,880/- for the purpose of extending benefit of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amount has been deposited and now there is no impediment in payment of the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent-JSEB, submitted that the delay was on the part of the petitioner and he deposited the required amount on 31st December,2012. Now, the paper shall be processed and the filled up Form '10D' shall be ...
Smt Chanchala Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2366 o1. Smt. Chanchala Kumari 2.M/s A to Z Properties 3.Jai Prakash Roy ..... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Tarun Kanti Ghoshal . Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : M/s P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate A. K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S. K. Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate ----- 02 /05.02.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.308 of 2011 including the order dated 19.10.2012, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120[B], 467, 468, 471 /34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. As per the case of the complainant, the complainant entered into an agreement for selling ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »