Jharkhand Court July 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.
Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.5695of2013 RajKumarSharma Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mrs.SheelaPrasad,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/30.07.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ItrevealsfromtheF.I.R.thatthedumpherbelongingtothispetitioner wasloadedwithcoalfortransportationfromFulariTandtoMadhubancolliery butthedumphermovedtowardsdifferentdirectionwithanintentiontodispose ofthecoalwithoutanyauthority. Itis submittedthatpetitioneris in jailcustodysince16.04.2013. No coal,loadedonthedumpherofthepetitioner,wasseizedatthetimeoflodging oftheF.I.R.SomeofthecoaccusedhavebeengrantedbailvideB.A.No.5548 of2013. LearnedcounselappearingfortheStateopposedtheprayerforbail. Consideringperiodofdetentionofpetitionerincustodycoupledwiththe factthatnocoal,loadedonthedumpherofthispetitioner,wasseizedatthe timeoflodgingoftheF.I.R.,heisdirectedtobereleasedonbailonfurnishing bailbondofRs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousand)withtw...
Sunita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S. No. 2692 of 2010 Sunita Devi ..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .Respondents ----- Coram:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : JC to G.P. III --- I.A. No. 5235 o05. 30-07-2013 In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer and amendment in the writ petition and also for addition of Anju Devi as respondent in the writ petition. It has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition, one Anju Devi has been appointed on the post which has been claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In view of the said subsequent event, the petitioner has to add appropriate prayer challenging the appointment of Anju Devi. It has been submitted that the amendment prayed for is based on the same factual background and the same, if allowed, would not change the nature of the writ petition. Learned J.C. to G.P.III, appearing on behalf of the ...
Om Prakash Bharti and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 2197 of 2013 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 801 of 2012 Om Prakash Bharti & ors. ...... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR -------- For the appellant: Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr.Advocate For the State: A.P.P. -------- th Order No. 07: Dated 30 July, 2013 Per D.N.Patel, J.1. Learned counsel for the applicants, who are original accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2002, submits that he is not pressing this interlocutory application, at this stage.2. In view of the aforesaid limited submission, this interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2197 of 2013 stands disposed of, as not pressed at this stage. ( D.N. Patel, J.) ( Prashant Kumar, J.) A.K.Verma/...
Md. Siraj Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.)No. 394 of 2012 Md. Siraj ....... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....... Respondents ............. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ..... .. For the Appellant :Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P ............ 09/Dated:30. h July, 2013 Oral Order: Per D.N. Patel. J.:1. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in pursuance of notice issued by this Court, today report has been filed before this Court that respondent nos. 5 & 7 have expired and respondent nos. 3, 18 & 22 are not residing at the address given by the appellant, hence they are not served the notice.2. Counsel appearing for the appellant is seeking time to put his house in order, therefore, the matter is adjourned to be listed on 26th August, 2013. (D.N. Patel, J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J) Tanuj/Satyarthi...
Alexius Samad Alias Alaksiyus Samad Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 476 of 2013 Alexius Samad @ Alaksiyus Samad Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand Respondent --------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:30. h July, 2013 Per D.N. Patel, J.:1. This criminal appeal is Admitted.2. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2008 is called for from the concerned Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Simdega), so as to reach to this Court to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence.3. Registry of this Court is directed to get the paper books prepared with neatly typed copies of depositions of the witnesses and other documents, as required under Rules 190 and 191 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001.4. The matter is adjourned to be listed on 26th August, 2013. (D.N. Patel, J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/Satyarthi...
Ram Shankar Chourasia Vs. Radhey Shyam Chourasia and Others
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3179 of 2013 Ram Shankar Chourasia .... .. Petitioner Versus Radhe Shyam Chourasia & Ors. ...... Respondents --- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, V.K. Trivedi, Adv. For the Respondents : M/s Ashish Verma, , S. Narsaria,Adv. - -- 4/30.07.2013 The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Dumka in Title Suit (Probate) No.01 of 2003 whereby the prayer of the transposed plaintiff No.2 for an opportunity to cross examine the defendant no.3,4 and 5 has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents and perused the impugned order as well as other material placed on record. On perusal of the same, it appears that the transposed Plaintiff No.2 has prayed for an opportunity to cross examine Defendant No.3, 4 and 5. It appears that the said prayer has been rejected by th...
Navneet Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 1292 of 2013 Navneet Kumar .........Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Tapas Roy For the State: Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, S.C.-II Mr. K.K. Mishra, APP 7/30.07.2013: Put up this case after two weeks enabling the Forest Department to examine as to whether Annexure-2 i.e. the order passed by F.S.O. dated 14.05.1962 in Case No. 63 of 1961 is genuine or not. Standing Counsel is directed to file supplementary counter affidavit in this respect. In the meantime, interim order dated 14.05.2013 shall continue. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Junas Kiro Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI CriminalAppeal(DB)No.322of2013 JunasKiro Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand Respondent CORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant :Mr.BakshiVibha,Advocate FortheRespondent :Mr.RaviPrakash,A.P.P. th 04/Dated:30 July,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J.1. Thisappealwasadmittedvideorderdated2ndJuly,2013and Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2013 was calledforfromthetrialcourtsoastoappreciatetheargumentsfor suspensionofsentence.2. Counselappearingfortheappellantisnotpressingtheprayer forsuspensionofsentence.3. LearnedcounselfortheStateA.P.P.submittedthatthecase ofprosecutionisbaseduponmorethanoneeyewitnesswhoare P.Ws2and6.Theappellanthascommittedmurderofhiswifein thehouseduringnighthoursandwascaughtredhandedinthe houseitselfandhasadmittedhisguiltwhilerecordingstatement underSection313ofCr.P.C.andthemedicalevidencegivenby P.W.12Dr.JitendraNathisalsocorroboratingtothedepositions givenbyP.Ws2and6.4. Lookingtothep...
Rakesh Sachdeva and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1088 of 2012 With I.A. No. 2380 o1. Rakesh Sachdeva 2. Ramesh Sachdeva 3. Sharda Sachdeva 4. Rajan Sachdeva 5. Minakshi Sachdeva @ Meenu Sachdeva Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Neelam Sachdeva Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2: M/s. Dilip Jerath, Advocate, Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 18.07.2013 Pronounced on 30.07.2013 ORDER H.C.Mishra,J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgement dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgement and Order dated 19.07.2010 passed by Smt. Veena Mishra, learned Judicial M...
Md Yusuf Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B.A. No. 4329 of 2012 Md. Yusuf Ansari .........Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kumar For the State: Mr. G.S. Prasad ,APP 11/30.07.2013: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Md. Yusuf Ansari in connection with Palajori ( Chitra) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2012 ( G.R. No. 376 of 2012) pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur is moved by Sri Deepak Kumar and opposed by Sri G.S. Prasad, learned Additional P.P. It is alleged that petitioner issued Living Certificate to Kaushalya Devi and on the basis of said living certificate, family pension withdrawn. Later on it was found that the said pension withdrawn illegally, as Kaushalya Devi died much earlier. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his anticipatory bail application reject...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »