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.
Nagendra Pandey Alias Gurujee Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1840 of 2013 Nagendra Pandey @ Gurujee ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar For the State : Mr. A.K. Prasad, A.P.P. For the Informant Mr. Rajan Raj ........ 7/29.07.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Nagendra Pandey @ Gurujee in connection with B.S. City Sector XII P.S. Case No. 78 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 310 of 2012 pending in the court of J.M. 1st Class, Bokaro is moved by Sri xxxxxxxx learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri xxxxx learned Additional PP. for the State. At the outset, Sri Rajan Raj appearing for the informant produced for my perusal certified copy of order dated 06.10. 2012 passed by the court below. From perusal of the same it appears that petitioner is proclaimed offender. Under the said circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner above name...
Bir Narayan Jha Vs. the Satate of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.1875 of 2012 Bir Narayan Jha .......................................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another...... Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala For the State :A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 :Mr.N.K.Pasari 4/ 29.7.13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 the case of the prosecution appears to be that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the petitioner by the complainant through cheque. The petitioner in lieu of that, gave post dated cheque and apart from that, certain document relating to landed property was also given and the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) whereby promise was made by the petitioner to repay the amount which has been taken on loan. On deposit of cheque, it got dishonoured and thereby notice was issued to the petitioner by the complainant on 22.11.2010 cal...
Surajdeo Rai Alias Suraj Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 4166 of 2013 ------- Surajdeo Rai @ Suraj . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. A.Kr. Choudhary For the State : : Mr. A.P.P. ------- 6/ 29.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction in para-6 of the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the father of the deceased. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sarawan P.S. Case No. 168 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1459 of 2012, for the offence under Sections 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code. An unknown dead body was recovered and the case was instituted against unknown. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused and ther...
Nanhey Pandey and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 849 o1. Nanhey Pandey 2. Narayan Ghosh @ Naru Ghosh Petitioners -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioners : - Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : - Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. 07/29.07.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Nanhey Pandey and Narayan Ghosh @ Naru Ghosh, is moved by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Smt Lily Sahay, learned Additional P.P. for the State. The main allegation is against co-accused Bire Singh. So far these petitioners are concerned, there is no allegation that they assaulted injured. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow the anticipatory bail application and direct petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 12.08.2013 and in the event of their surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing ...
Ananta Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 220 of 2013 Ananta Kumar Pradhan .. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .. Respondents ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ----- For the Petitioner - Mr. M.M.Sharma For the Respondents - Mr. J.C to G.P-III ----- 3/29.7.2013 In this C.M.P, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4202/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the beginning of 6th line of 5th paragraph of the said order, in place of 'VI', it has been inadvertently typed as 'V'. Learned J.C to G.P-III has also submitted that the said typing error has occurred in the said order. On perusal of the record, I find that the said submissions of learned counsel are supported by the facts on record. In view of the above, at the beginning of 6th line of 5th paragraph of the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4202/2010, the figure 'V' be ignored and in place thereof, it be...
Ajit Kumar Mishra and ors Vs. Chief Secretory
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(PIL)No.4538of2013 AjitKumarMishra&Ors.... Petitioners Versus StateofJharkhand&Ors. ...... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMRS.JUSTICEJAYAROY ForthePetitioners:Mr.DilipKumarPrasad,Advocate. AjitKr.Mishra,AmitKumarSurka, OmkarnathTiwari,BrajeshKumar, DilipKumar,Advocates. FortheRespondents:Mr.DelipJerath,Advocate Mr.RajeshKumar,G.P.V OrderNo.03 Dated:29thJuly2013 The matter requires consideration and issue is of far reaching consequences and further it is concerned with the religioussentimentsofalargenumberofdevoteesforwhichthis petitionhasbeenfiled,butlookingtothepaucityoftime,itwillbe appropriatetoadjournedthematter. Listthiscaseon5thAugust,2013. (PrakashTatia,C.J.) (JayaRoy,J.) SI/Anit...
Md Anwar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 2105 of 2013 Md. Anwar @ Md. Anwar Alam Versus The State of Jharkhand with B. A. No. 4007 o1. Md. Akhtar 2. Md. Jamil @ Sk. Jamil Versus The State of Jharkhand -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : M/s K.P. Deo & D.K. Dubey, Advocates For the State : A.P.P. -------- 3/ 29.07.2013 Both these bail applications arise out of the same case and as such, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioners have been made accused for the offences under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Lalmatiya P.S. Case No. 80 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1469 of 2012. The case relates to dacoity, in which, Haiwa vehicle was taken away by the culprits after committing murder of the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the pe...
Anil Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.No.2226of2012 AnilKumarSinha........... Petitioner Versus StateofJharkhand&Anr Opp.Parties Coram: HonbleMr.JusticeR.R.Prasad ForthePetitioners :None FortheOpp.Parties :Mr.APP ....... 2./29.07.2013 The first information report of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 244/2010(G.R.No.3094/2010),registeredunderSections419,420,467, 468,471,379and120BoftheIndianPenalCode,isbeingsoughttobe quashedonthegroundthattherehasbeennospecificallegationagainst thepetitionerwithrespecttotheallegationmadeintheF.I.R.andthatthe F.I.R.hasbeenlodgedbelatedly. Both the grounds, taken for quashing of the first information report,neverappeartobetenable.Accordingly,thefirstinformationreport,, neverwarrantstobequashed,onthegroundsasstatedaboveand,hence, thisapplicationstandsdismissed. (R.R.Prasad,J) Mukund/cp.3...
Suraj Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 211 of 2012 Suraj Kumar & Anr. .... .. Appellants Versus Punjab National Bank, Bokaro & Anr. ...... Respondents --- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Adv. For the Respondents : - -- 4/29.07.2013 The office has raised objection with regard to maintainability of the instant First Appeal on the ground that the valuation of appeal mentioned in page 2 of memo is Rs.1,23,545/- hence the pecuniary jurisdiction of the instant first appeal has to be before the court of District Judge. I have perused a decision given in a case of Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. Jahnvi Prasad Sah reported in AIR 199.Patna 202 where in it has been specifically held that as per Section 8 of Suit Valuation Act, value as determinable for the purpose of computation of court fee shall be value of purpose of jurisdiction. It is also held that in a suit for resolution of partnership and render of accounts, valuation given in plaint wo...
Baijnath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5242 of 2011 Baijnath Ram .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents ------ CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sumeer Prasad, S.C.I ------ 5/29.07.2013: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider him for promotion to the junior selection grade and senior selection grade from the date, the persons junior to him, have been given promotion. It has been stated that in the year 2009 the matter for promotion was taken up and several other similarly situated persons and even juniors to the petitioner, were given promotion. Due to pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner's promotion was not given and decision was kept in sealed cover. It has been submitted that the candidates, whose matter for promotion was kept in sealed cover...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »