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.
Ravindra Kumar Das ? Vakil Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.Rev. No743 of 2009 Ravindra Kumar Das @ Vakil ............................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another................. ..Opposite Parties CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Jerath For the State :Mr.R.C.P.Sah, A.P.P 2.5.2.13. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1st, Dhanbad in Cr. App. No.286 of 2008 whereby he affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed on 20.9.2008 by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case no.702 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the petitioner having been convicted for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this ...
Banbihari Mahato Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. I.A. No. 3163 of 2011 in F.A. No. 20 of 2011 Banbihari Mahato Appellant -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand & Others Respondents. CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Appellant : - Mr. J.Mahato, Advocate. For the Respondents : - J.C. to S.C. (Mines). I.A. No. 3163 of 2011 ... 07/05.02.2013 The present interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as there is a delay of about 408 days' in preferring the present first appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 3163 of 2011. Perused the application. In view of the reasons stated in this application, it appears that the applicant has shown sufficient cause which prevented the present applicant-appellant from preferring the present first appeal in time. Hence, this application is allowed. The delay of 408 days in filing of the instant First Appeal is hereby ordered to be condoned. I.A. No. 3163 of 2011 stands disposed of. ... F.A. No. 20 of ...
Kallu ? Birendra Yadav ? Birendra Kumar ? Kullu Ya Vs. State of Jharkh ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.845of2008 Kallu@BirendraYadav@BirendraKumar@KalluYadav Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.CHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant: Mr.R.S.Mazumdar FortheRespondent: Mr.A.P.P. 18/Dated:February,05,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J I.A.No.1957of20111) The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to this applicant (appellant No.2), who is original accusedNo.2inSessionsTrialNo.72of2006.Thepresentappellanthas beenconvictedbytheAdditionalJudicialCommissioner,F.T.C.VIII,Ranchi inSessionsTrialNo.72of2006mainlyfortheoffenceunderSection302 oftheIndianPenalCodeforlifeimprisonmentaswellasothersectionsof theIndianPenalCode.2) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Lookingtotheevidencesonrecord,itappearsthatthewholecaseofthe prosecutionisbasedupontherecoveryofpartofthedeadbod...
Yogeshwar Singh Alias Yugeshwar Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.655of2013 YogeshwarSingh@YugeshwarPrasadsingh@YugeshwarSingh .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.A.K.Kashyap,Sr.Advocate Mrs.LinaShakti,Advocate Mr.AnuragKashyap,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections341/324/307/506oftheIndianPenalCode. Counselappearingforthepetitionerhassubmittedthatthe informantistheneighbourandoncertainaltercation,theoccurrence hastakenplace.Itisalsosubmittedthatthepetitionerisincustody since21stNovember,2012. 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....
Raja Tubid Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 568 of 2013 Raja Tubid ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 302/34/120(B)/324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that he shot fire but no incriminating articles have been recovered from him. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that there is specific allegation against the petitioner is that he shot fire by which the victim lady fell down and died. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there is specific all...
Sheikh Eqbal HussaIn and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 116 o1. Sheikh Eqbal Hussain 2.Ram Singh Samad 3.Abdul Rajak 4.Kalimuddin .... Petitioners Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........ .... Opposite party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi For the State : Mr. V.K. Tiwary, APP 5/05.02.2013: It is submitted that petitioner nos. 3 and 4, namely, Abdul Rajak and Kalimuddin have been arrested. Thus, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 3 and 4, namely, Abdul Rajak and Kalimuddin. In view of the aforesaid submissions, anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 3 and 4, namely, Abdul Rajak and Kalimuddin, is dismissed as withdrawn. Let this order be communicated to the court below through Fax at the cost of petitioner. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Saheb Ram Soren Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.724of2013 SahebRamSoren .... .... . Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand .... .... .... Opp.Party CORAM:HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.KumarNilesh,Advocate FortheOpp.Party :A.P.P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard counsel appearingforthepetitionerandcounsel appearingfortheState. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections 25(1B)A/26/35 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of ExplosivesubstanceAct. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that regardingthesameincidence,anothercasehasbeenregisteredunder Sections399/402oftheIndianPenalCode.Itisalsosubmittedthatin the present case only one country made pistol loaded with live cartridgehasbeenrecoveredfromthepossessionofthepetitionerand thepetitionerisincustodysince4thJune,2012. 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 p...
Ravi Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 706 of 2013 Ravi Shankar Singh ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. 02/05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 20,22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the allegation made that from the possession of the petitioner 8 gm. heroine (brown sugar) have been recovered, but in the F.I.R. it is not stated whether from the exclusive possession of the petitioner the same has been recovered or not. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that it is very clear in the seizor list which has been annexed in this application from the possession of Ravi Shankar Singh, Aftab Alam @ Tinku, Deepak Kumar and Pawan Singh heroin...
Sunil Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.569 of 2011 Sunil Singh . Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N.P. Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : APP ----- 02/05.02.2013: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. Let this application be dismissed as withdrawn. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/...
Manik Chandra Mahato Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 114 of 2013 Manik Chandra Mahato .... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr.Ranjan Kumar For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 05.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner committed rape on the complainant while she was returning home after serving meal to her husband. It is submitted that this case has been lodged only because the petitioner did not agree to oblige the informant and he did not appear in the panchayati. She never raised alarms, nor reported immediately to the police. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Since there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape on the informant, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Chowka PS case no. 53 of 2012 pending in the court of learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »