Jharkhand Court June 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.
Ainul Haque and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1009 of 2012 Ainul Haque and others ...........................Petitioners VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another .............. Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioners : Md.Razaullah Ansari For the State : A.P.P 6.19.6.13. I.A.No.3410 of 2013 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this application has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance but while the matter was pending hearing, prayer for discharge of the petitioners has been rejected by the court below, vide order dated 23.5.2013 which has been challenged by way of this interlocutory application and therefore, the prayer made in the interlocutory application be allowed to be incorporated in the main application. The prayer made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed. Let the aforesaid I.A form part of the main application. Cr.M.P.No.1009 of 2012 As prayed for, let this matter be listed on 24.6.2013. (...
Ajablal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(PIL)No.345of2011 AjablalSingh,Advocate .... .... .... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. .... .... ....Respondents CORAM :HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioner :Mr.Inperson FortheState :Mr.A.Allam,Sr.Advocate th OrderNo.17 Dated,19 June,2013 Learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution sanction has been granted against nine persons and nowtheVigilanceDepartmentwilllodgeF.I.R.Sofarasfourother personsareconcerned,againstthosepersonsmatterhasnotbeen examinedbytheVigilanceDepartment,theVigilanceDepartmentis directedtogiveonaffidavitastowhytheotherfourpersonshave notbeeninterrogated. The respondents are also directed to give an informationtothisCourtwhetherF.I.R.hasbeenlodgedornot. CopyoftheorderbegiventothecounselfortheState. Putupon15thJuly,2013. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) (JayaRoy,J.) SI/Anit...
Logen Soren Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.146of2013 LogenSoren .......Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand .....Respondent. CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR. FortheAppellant :Mr.BrijN.Kumar,Advocate FortheState:Mr.RaviPrakash,A.P.P. 05/Dated:19 th June,2013 Oralorder: PerD.N.Patel,J.:1. ThisappealhasbeenAdmittedvideorderdated14thMay,2013and therecordandproceedingsofSessionsTrialNo.215of2009wascalled fromthetrialcourtsoastoappreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionof sentence.2. ThisCourthasreceivedtherecordandproceedingsofthetrialcourt andwehaveperusedthesame.3. Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe evidencesonrecordandalsolookingtothe prosecutionwitnessesfrom P.W.1toP.W.8,thereisaprimafaciecaseinfavourofthisappellant.Asthe criminalappealispending,wearenotmuchanalyzingtheevidenceson record, but, suffice it to say that the allegations levelled against this appellant is of gang rape in which other accused persons have been acquittede...
Ramesh Gope and ors Vs. Central Coal Fields Limited and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI C.M.P.No.495of2012 With I.A.No.988of2013 RameshGope&Ors. .... .... .... Petitioners Versus TheCentralCoalFieldsLtd.&Ors. .... .... ....Respondents CORAM :HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioners :Mr.RanjeetKumarSingh,Advocate FortheRespondents :Mr.AnandaSen,Advocate th OrderNo.04 Dated,19 June,2013 Heard learned counsel for parties on the application beingI.A.No.988of2013forcondonationofdelay. Inviewofthefactsstatedintheapplication,thedelay of39daysinfilingtheC.M.P.iscondoned. Accordingly,I.A.No.988of2013isallowed. HeardlearnedcounselforthepartiesonC.M.P.which hasbeenfiledforrestorationofL.P.A.No.194of2012. Inviewofthefactsstatedintheapplication,theC.M.P. is allowed and L.P.A. No.194 of 2012 is restored to its original position. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) (JayaRoy,J.) SI/Anit...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1485 of 2012 Rakesh Kumar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunita Prasad ... ... ... Opposite Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State : A. P. P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Burnwal, Advocate 10/19.06.2013 Office by bonafide mistake listed this case under the heading 'for hearing'. Put up this case under the heading 'for admission' on 26.06.2013 in Court. Till then, interim order dated 29.11.2012 shall continue. (Jaya Roy, J.) Satayendra...
Tarsem Singh Vs. State Bank of India Through the Chief Manager Sarc an ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3049 of 2013 --- Tarsem Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State Bank of India & others --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the SBI: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate --- I.A. No. 3435/2013 02/ 19.06.2013 The instant interlocutory application has been preferred for fixing an early date of hearing under the heading for fresh filing on the apprehension that the respondent Bank would institute criminal case against the petitioner and would seek forfeiture of the vehicle taken by the petitioner on loan by engaging private enforcement agency. Counsel for the respondent Bank however vehemently disputed the aforesaid apprehension stating that all actions for realization of the outstanding dues of the petitioner would be taken in accordance with law and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pet...
Sidam Kumar Mahto Alias Sidam Mahto and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 2152 of 2013. ----- 1. Sidam Kumar Mahto @ Sidam Mahto 2. Manjoo Devi @ Majo Devi Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party. ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioners : Sri Aasish Kumar For the State : Sri Vikash Kishore, A.P.P. ----- 02/19.06.2013. Anticipatory bail application filed by Sidam Kumar Mahto @ Sidam Mahto is moved by Sri Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Vikash Kishore, Addl.P.P. for the State. This is a case under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in- law of informant. No specific allegations made against these petitioners. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 29.06.2013. If petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarg...
Seraj Khan and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.1519of2013 1.SerajKhan@SerajAhmad 2.SamshadBegum@SamshadBiwi 3.SehraKhatoon 4.ArminKhatoon@YarminKhatoon Petitioners Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioners :Mr.TapasRoy,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/19.06.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ItrevealsfromtheF.I.R.thatthecomplainantwassubjectedtorapeby accusedno.1MahesurRajaKhan. Whenthisfactcametotheknowledgeof parents of the victim and villagers, a meeting under the aegis of Anjuman Committee was convened and after that marriage between complainant and accusedMahesurRajaKhanwassolemnized. Itisallegedthatinformantwas notacceptedbyfamilymembersandshewassubjectedtotortureandtreated withcrueltyforwantofdowry. Itissubmittedthatpresentcasehasbeenlodgedonlybecausetheother familymemberswerenothappywiththemarriagewhichwassolemnizedunder somecompulsion createdbyAnjumanCommittee. Otherallegations levelled againstthemarefalseandfabricated.Somec...
Subash Oraon Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 1698 of 2013 with A.B.A. No. 1668 of 2013 Subhash Oraon.........Petitioner ( in ABA 1698/13) Rakesh Kumar.....Petitioner ( in ABA 1668/13) Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite parties ( in both cases) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioners: Mr. Delip Jerath, Mr. Rajesh Kumar ( in ABA No. 1698/13) Mr. Amresh Kumar ( in ABA 1668/13) For the State: Mr. A.K. Pandey, APP ( in ABA 1698/13) Mr. Prem Prakash, APP ( in ABA 1668/13) 5/19.06.2013: Both the anticipatory bail applications are heard together as they arose from the same FIR. Anticipatory bail applications filed by petitioners Subhash Oraon and Rakesh Kumar are moved by Sri Delip Jerath and Sri Amresh Kumar and opposed by Sri A.K. Pandey and Sri Prem Prakash, learned Additional P.Ps. respectively. It appears that the scheme no. 4/04-05 was sanctioned for building a Check Dam in the village Sithiyo in the district of Lohardaga. It then appears that Laloo...
Bishnu Kumar Budhia Vs. Home Department
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. W.P(C) No.3484 of 2013 Bishnu Kumar Budhia..................................... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand &Ors .................. Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner :- Mr Indrajit Sinha.Adv. For the State-Respondent :- Mr. S.K.Verma Adv. 2/19.6.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has taken steps for removal of the defects, as pointed out by the office. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith provide adequate police protection for the property of the petitioner situated within Mouza and P.S. Hindpiri, portion of M.S plot nos. 625,626,627 having a total area of 736 kaaris(40 Kathas) more or less, which is under threat of miscreants and anti-social elements who are being facilitated by some employees of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »