Jharkhand Court August 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.
Surendra Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3067 of 2013 Surendra Kumar ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr....Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mrs. Vandana Singh For the State: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP 2/29.08.2013: 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 Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.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/-...
Rambilash Saw Alias Tibhar Saw Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7989 of 2013 Ram Bilash Sao @ Tibhar Sao ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar For the State : A. P.P. ----- 2/29.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of Arms Act, in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.25 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.329 of 2013. From the FIR, it appears that the petitioner was apprehended on the basis of his confessional statement, one country made pistol loaded with three cartridges was recovered from the house of the petitioner on 12.4.2013. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Ram Bilash Sao @ Tibhar Sao is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with tw...
Basudeo Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4714 of 2012 Basudeo Sharma ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Ms. Rashmi Kumari For the State: Mr. Ravi Prakash, APP 6/29.08.2013: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Basudeo Sharma in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 ( G.R. No. 882 of 2012) pending in the court of learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Div.) VI, Koderma is moved by Ms. Rashmi Kumari and opposed by Sri Ravi Prakash, learned Additional P.P. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted informant, as a result of that her elbow fractured. The injury report, at Flag-R' supports the aforesaid allegation. Under the said circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his anticipatory bail application rejected. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.563 of 2009 Vakil Prasad Singh.Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through Vigilance.Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sahani For the Vigilance : None 3/ 29.8.13. I.A.(Cr.) No.2503 of 2013 Mr.A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance. Subsequent to filing this Cr.M.P, a writ application was filed whereby the order under which sanction for prosecution has been granted was challenged. The petitioner did succeed in that writ application as the order sanctioning prosecution was quashed but at the same time, liberty was granted to the prosecution to have fresh sanction in accordance with law. Fresh sanction was granted for prosecution, upon which the court has again taken cognizance of the offence, vide order dated 20.2.2013 and that order has been challenged by way of I.A (Cr.) No.2503 of 2013 and ...
Lakhi Bibi Vs. Jitan Ghosh and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A No. 286 of 2010 Lakhi Bibi .... Appellant Versus Jitan Ghosh and another ... Respondents Coram : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the appellant (s): Mr.T.K.Mishra For the respondents : xxx 29.08.2013 Counsel for the appellants is directed to serve within two days a copy of the memo of appeal along with the limitation petition ( IA No. 796 of 2011) on Mr Alok Lal, Advocate, who has assured to appear on behalf of the New India Assurance Company ( respondent no.2). Put up this case under the same heading after two weeks. Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)...
Mahadev Yadav Alias Akelajee Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6117 of 2013 Mahadev Yadav @ Akelajee ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 29.08.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 687 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307, 436, 438, 427, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act. There is allegation against 50-60 members of the extremists group to have burnt several vehicles which were being plied on the date of Bandh called by the extremists. There is also allegation of firing, in which, one person was injured. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Mahadev Yadav @ ...
Gangia Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 493 of 2013 Gangia Devi Petitioner -V e r s u s- State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the State : - Mr. amitabh, A.P.P. 08/29.08.2013 It is submitted by Sri P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that 'Mukhiya' has no role in making payment with regard to the Schemes mentioned in the first information report. Under the said circumstance, learned Additional is directed to seek instruction and file supplementary counter affidavit specifically about the role of 'Mukhiya' in payment of money to different persons. In the meantime, interim order dated 03.07.2013 will continue. ( Prashant Kumar, J.) sunil/...
Vinay Kumar Singh Alias Vinay Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6411 of 2013 Vinay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Radhey Shyam Pandey Mr. Vivek Agrawal For the State : A. P.P. ----- 4/29.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.38 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1137 of 2013. From the FIR, it appears that the case relates to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.7,46,500/- from Jharkhand Gramin Bank, through a fake transaction and fake entries were made by the employees of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank in connivance with some outsiders. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The impugned order shows that the petitioner was initially arrested in this case and was produced before the Court, but he was ...
Md Munna Seikh Alias Md Munna Alias Rahmat Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6080 of 2013 Md. Munna Seikh @ Md. Munna @ Rahmat ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Tejo Mistry, Advocate. Mr.P.K.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 29.08.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 139 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2336 of 2012, S.T No.92 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to dacoity and the case was instituted against unknown. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the basis of confessional statement. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Md. Munna Seikh @ Md. Munna @ Rahmat on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, i...
Kauleshwar Prajapati Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(S)No.3330of2009 KauleshwarPrajapati ....Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&others ...Respondents CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :Mr.A.K.Sahni,Adv. FortheRespondents :J.C.toS.C.(Mines). 10/29.08.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionerhadearlierapproachedthisCourtinW.P.(S) No. 5808 of 2007 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground in view of death of one Dhaneshwar Prajapati,claiminghimselftobethesonofthedeceasedemployee. Hehadalsosoughtdirectionupontherespondentsforpaymentof his share in deathcumretiraldues and in the arrears of salary, whicharelegallypayabletothedeceasedemployee. Inthesaid writpetition,thematterrelatingtotheexistenceoftwowidowsof thedeceasedemployeewasalsobroughttothenoticeofthecourt andthatthefirstwifei.e.widow,ParwaDevihadason,namely, GaneshPrajapati. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the RespondentsState, the matter was di...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »