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.
Tarkeshwar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3862 of 2012 Tarkeshwar Singh ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sushil Kumar Singh ... ... Opp. Parties CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prakash Kr. Sahay, A.P.P. ........ 6/05.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sale deed will be registered within a few days, therefore he prayed for some time. As prayed for, put up this case on 18.02.2013. In the meantime, interim order passed on 01.11.2012 will continue. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit...
Daulat Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.653of2013 DaulatMahto .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mrs.VandanaSingh,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections414/34oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection33oftheIndian ForestAct. Counselappearingforthepetitionerhassubmittedthatthe petitioner'snamehascomeonlyontheconfessionalstatementofthe coaccusedwhowasarrestedonthespot.Itisalsocontendedthatthe petitionerisincustodysince27.12.2012i.e.morethanonemonth. Counsel appearing for the State has not disputed the contentionsmadebythecounselforthepetitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner, abovenamed,isdirectedtobereleasedonbail,onfurnishingbailbond ofRs.10,000/(Rs.Tenthousand)withtwosureti...
Munna Turi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 4252 of 2012 Munna Turi .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opposite party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit For the State : Mr. G.S. Prasad , APP 3/05.02.2013: This application has been placed for correction of order dated 31.1.2013. It appears that due to mistake the word not has not been typed in between the word shall and be in the 1 st line of 3rd paragraph of order dated 31.1.2013 The said typographical mistake is hereby corrected and now the said order will be read as :- In the meantime, petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with G. Case No. 469 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 177 of 2012 pending int he court of learned J.M., 1 st Class, Hazaribagh. Let this order be communicated to the court below through Fax. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Ramjee Mehta Alias Ranjeet Mehta Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3858 of 2012 With A. B. A. No. 3865 of 2012 Ramjee Mehta @ Ramjeet Mehta ...Petitioner (In both cases) Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party (In both cases) CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : M/s Anil Kumar, Shashi Kumar (In both cases) For the Opp. Party : Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No. 3858/12) Mr. Tapash Kabiraj, A.P.P.(In A.B.A. No. 3865/12) ........ 6/05.02.2013 Learned Additional PP shall file supplementary-counter- affidavit as to whether there is any notification under Section 30 of the Forest Act regarding Domchanch forest area, as also with regard to the fact whether any Rule framed under Section 32 of the Act or not. As prayed, put up these cases after two weeks. In the meantime, interim orders passed on 20.12.2012 in both the cases will continue. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Sri G.S. Prasad, learned Additional PP for its onward communication. (Pras...
Pramod Sao and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4282 o1. Pramod Sao 2. Pappu Sao 3. Anil Sao ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary For the Opp. Party : Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P. ........ 5/05.02.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners Pramod Sao, Pappu Sao and Anil Sao is moved by Sri Vishal Kumar Tiwary learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri G.S. Prasad, learned Additional PP. for the State. F.I.R. was lodged against six persons. Out of aforesaid six persons, charge-sheet submitted only against two persons and one Munna Kumar Mehta. Petitioners and co-accused Shibu Sao have not been sent up for trial. However, court below took cognizance also against these petitioners. It appears from charge-sheet that persons against whom, charge-sheet submitted are on bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allo...
Sunil Roy Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 644 of 2013 Sunil Roy................. ........... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ...... ......... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sinha, 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 Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307, 353, 332, 333, 435, of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substance Act & u/Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Dhanbad. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner though he is named in the F.I.R He has further submitted that another co-accused namely Mahesh Bharti who is standing on the similar footing with the present petitioner has been granted bail by another Bench in B.A. No.5580 of 2012 vide order...
Mahendra Gope 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. 4298 of 2012 ----- 1. Mahendra Gope 2. Karan Yadad @ Karan @ Guddu Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party. . ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioner : Miss Renu Bala For the State : Sri.Amresh Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 02/05.02.2013. Anticipatory bail application filed by Mahendra Gope and Karan Yadad @ Karan @ Guddu is moved by Miss Renu Bala , learned counsels for the petitioner and opposed by Sri. Amresh Kumar , Addl P.P. for the State. There is allegation against petitioner no.1 Mahendra Gope that he assaulted Amit Kumar Yadav on his head with Axe. Under the said circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no.1 Mahendra Gope on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, from perusal of F.I.R. I find that there is no specific allegation against petitioner no.2 Karan Yadad @ Karan @ Guddu. Considering the aforesaid fact and circu...
Kalpana Devi 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. 2720 of 2012 Kalpana Devi ..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents :JC to S.C. 1 ----- 11/05.02.2013 From the report, it appears that petitioner has already taken steps for service of notice on respondent no. 4, though there was delay. Considering the reasons explained by the petitioner, the time for taking steps is extended to the date when the same was filed. Office will accept the requisition and issue notice to respondent no.4. ( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J) Rakesh/...
Sandeep Kumar Bhagat Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 805 of 2012 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 807of 2012 Sandeep Kumar Bhagat ... Appellant (In Crl A. No. 805 of 2012) 1. Krishna Prasad Bhagat 2. Sanjay Kumar Bhagat 3. Kanchan Devi 4. Kiran Devi ...... Appellants (In Crl A. No. 807 of 2012) Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent (In both the appeals) CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------- For the Appellant (s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vibhuti Shankar Sahay, APP. 10/Dated :5. h February, 2013 Oral Order Per D.N.Patel, J 1.Both these appeals have been admitted by this Court by order dated 8th August, 2012.2. The record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2010 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants for suspension of sentence awarded to the appellants by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka.3. These ...
Meera Kumari 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. 2778 of 2011 Meera Kumari ..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :JC to G.P. IV ----- 04/05.02.2013 The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Memo No. 157, dated 21.03.2011, whereby the services of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika has been terminated. The main ground, on which the said order has been challenged, is that the order is not supported by any material or evidence on record and the same is perverse and arbitrary. It has been stated that a show cause notice dated 17.01.2011 was served on the petitioner asking her to file reply on the allegations mentioned therein. The petitioner filed reply denying all the allegations. Though, the petitioner had denied the allegations without any contrary material or evidence on record, the impugned order of termination dated 21.03.2011 has been i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »