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.
Ram Pukar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Department R ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4768 of 2012 Ram Pukar Sharma ... ... ... .. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Vigilance Department, Ranchi ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra For the Opp. Party : None ........ 8/17.06.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Ram Pukar Sharma is moved by Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and nobody appeared on behalf of Opp. Party. From perusal of first information report I find that allegation against petitioner is similar to co-accused Dr. Rishikesh Kumar Sinha @ R.K. Sinha, the then Superintendent of M.G.M. Medical College, Yugal Kishore Das and Hari Shankar Prasad. Aforesaid co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court vide Annexures-3,4 and 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitione...
No.941380063 Constable Satyend Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 1542 of 2011 No. 941380063 Constable Satyendra Chauhan ..Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : JC to C.G.C. ---- I.A. No. 1809/2013 07/17-06-2013 In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer and amendment in the writ petition in view of subsequent development in the matter. It has been stated that the writ petition was filed challenging the departmental proceeding and the said departmental proceeding has now been concluded by the order served on the petitioner by letter no. 1893 dated 16.3.2011 awarding him punishment of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment prayed for is closely related to the relief sought for in the writ petition and is based on the same factual foundation, which is already on record and the proposed amendment does not change ...
Kishori Mohan Pandey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3787 o1. Kishori Mohan Pandey 2. Shushma Devi @ Sushma Pandey Petitioners -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand & Another ... Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioners : - Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the State : - None. For the O.P. No. 2 : - None. 07/17.06.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Kishori Mohan Pandey and Shushma Devi @ Sushma Pandey, is moved by Sri M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of State, nor on behalf of opposite party no.2. This is a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law. The allegations against petitioner no. 1 is similar to co-accused Yogesh Pandey brother- in-law (bhaisur) of complainant. The said Yogesh Pandey has been granted bail vide order dated 05.11.2012 in A.B.A. No. 3790 of 2012. So far petitioner no. 2, there is no allegation of demand and / or torture against her. Considering ...
Abhishek Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3518 of 2011 Abhishek Kumar Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate M/s Lina Shakti, Advocate. For the State : - Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. 20/17.06.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Abhishek Kumar, is moved by Sri A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri V.S. Sahay, learned Additional P.P. for the State. It is alleged that the co-accused named in the first information report took money from various students for getting them admitted in Kalyani IT Centre. Petitioner is not named in the first information report. In the case diary it has been mentioned that it has come to light, during investigation, that petitioner was treasurer of Kalyani IT Centre, but there is no evidence to substantiate that fact. It appears that petitioner has been implicated in this case merely because ...
Sampat Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3473 of 2010 with I.A. No.3671 of 2013 Sampat Das .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : J.C. to S.C.III ------ 14/17.06.2013: The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure-5), whereby the respondents have refused to pay salary of the Range Officer to the petitioner. He has also prayed for direction on the respondents to grant benefit of ACP. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in the year 1961. In course of service, he was given promotion to the post of Forester. Subsequently, by order dated 11.12.2000 the petitioner along with the others was given promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer. However, benefit of promotion was to be given from the date of joining the place of posting. The grievance of the petitioner is that th...
Aman Anand Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 2269 of 2013 Aman Anand .........Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar For the State: Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, APP 2/17.06.2013: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory bail application. Permission accorded. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Prakash Sahu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.Appeal(DB)No.661of2012 With Cr.Appeal(DB)No.756of2012 1.RamchandraSahu 2.AmardeepSahu Appellants(InCr.AppealNo.661/12) PrakashSahu@PrakashSahuSaoAppellant(InCr.AppealNo.756/12) Versus TheStateofJharkhand Respondent(Inbothcases) CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellants :Mr.M.K.Habib,Advocate(InCr.Appeal661/12) FortheAppellant :Mr.P .P.N.Roy,Sr.Advocate(InCr.Appeal756/12) FortheRespondent:A.P .P. 20/Dated:17 th June,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J.: Cr.Appeal(DB)No.661of2012 1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant no. 2 tenderinghisunconditionalapologyoffilingofaforgeddocumenti.e.School Leaving Certificate of appellant no.2. The said document was forged and fabricatedanditwascontendedthatappellantno.2isminorandI.A.No.1226 of2013whichisfiledonbehalfofappellantno.2isnowtobewithdrawn.This affidavitistakenonrecord.2. Accordingly,I.A.No.1226of2013isdisposedofaswithdrawn.3. Thisappealhasbeenadmitte...
Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cont.(Civil)CaseNo.271of2013 ManojKumarAgrawal .......Petitioner Versus StateofJharkhandandors. ......Oppositeparties CORAM:HONBLETHECHIEFJUSTICE .... ForthePetitioner:M/sKalyanRoy&SidharthaRoy,Adv. FortheState:M/sR.Mukhopadhyay,S.C.II&ManojKr.not III,APP Orderno.9 Datedl7thJune,2013 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to paucityoftime,petitionercouldnotlifttheentirecoal.However, learnedcounselfortherespondentStatesubmittedthatasperhis informationreceivedtoday,atotalquantityof2253.8MetricTonne coal has already been lifted and only a short quantity of coal is remainingthere.2. However,learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatas perhislastinformationreceived,atotalquantityofleftoutcoalis 1395.45MetricTonne.3. Bethatasitmay,petitionerisdirectedtolifttheremaining coalinpresenceoftherepresentativeoftherespondentinbetween 21stJuneto28thJune,2013.5. ListthismatterinthethirdweekofJuly,,2013. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) G.Jha/...
Deo Charan Lohra and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.289of2013 1.DeocharanLohra 2.SurjiDevi Petitioners Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.JayantiDevi OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioners :Mr.RajivAnand,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 07/17.06.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. Petitioners areaccusedin connectionwithComplaintCase No.1156of 2007, pending in the Court of Miss. A. Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Petitioners have been prosecuted for causing torture and treating the complainantwithcrueltyforwantofmoredowry. Itissubmittedthatthemarriagewassolemnizedabout1819yearsback butnowthecomplainanthasbeenraisingallegationofdemandofdowrywhich isfalseandfabricated. PetitionerNo.2isaladywhohasbeentakingcareof petitionerNo.1andhisparents. LearnedcounselappearingfortheStateopposedtheprayerforbail. It appears that petitioner No.1 has arranged second marriage with petitionerNo.2andbothofthemhaveassaultedandoustedthecomplainant fromthehouse. Consideringthealle...
Suman Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.501of2013 SumanKumar Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.PrabirKr.Chaterjee,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 06/17.06.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. Itreveals that twomobilesets have beenstolen from the shop ofthe informantwhilehewasdealingwiththecustomers. Duringinvestigationthe calldetailreport,obtainedbytheI.O.,indicatedthatoneofthestolenmobileset wasbeingusedbythispetitioner. Itissubmittedthatpetitionerhasneverstolenmobilesetinordertouse itatanypointoftime.Onthebasisofweakpieceofevidencethepetitionerhas beenimplicatedinthiscase. LearnedcounselappearingfortheStateopposedtheprayerforbail. Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesaswellasevidenceavailablein thecasediary,abovenamedpetitionerisdirectedtosurrenderbeforetheCourt belowwithinaperiodofthreeweeksfromtodayandonsuchsurrenderheis directedtobereleasedonbailonfurnishingbailbondofRs.10,000/(Rupees TenThousand)withtwosu...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »