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.
Anil Khirwal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 1314 of 2013. ----- Anil Khirwal Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ramnarayn Choudhary Opposite Parties. ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioner : Sri Indrajit Sinha For the State : Sri S.K. Pandey, A.P.P. For the O.P. no.2 : Sri Rahul Sabu ----- 04/23.08.2013. Anticipatory bail application filed by Anil Khirwal is moved by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri S.K. Pandey, Addl.P.P. for the State and Sri Rahul Sabu, counsel for the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. It is alleged that petitioner extracted iron-ore to the extent of 6,000 TPA and 2,000 TPA in the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, without obtaining environmental clearance from MoEF, Government of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was doing mining work according to the lease granted in his favour by the State Government, which was renewed in ...
Basudeo Tiwari Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.686 of 2013 Basudeo Tiwari ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Nisith Kr. Sahani For the State : A. P.P. ----- 4/23.8.2013 This application will be heard. Admit. Call for the lower court records. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner Basudeo Tiwari shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Arbind Kumar No.2 learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, or his successor, in connection with G.R. No.235 of 2005 / T.R. No.194 of 2013. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar...
Rajeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand Thr.Vigilan
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1644 of 2011 Rajeshwar Prasad Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate ----- I.A. No. 6093 o5. 23.08.2013 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on an interlocutory application bearing I.A. 6093 of 2013. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that initially this case had been filed for quashing of the first information report. Subsequently, on submission of the charge- sheet, when cognizance of the offence was taken, it was challenged vide I.A. No. 427 of 2012. Further, during pendency of this application, even charges have been framed and that order dated 6.10.2012 framing charges have been challenged by way of interlocutory application bearing I.A. 6093 of 2013 and, therefore, the prayer ...
Manoj Giri Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 379 of 2012 Manoj Giri Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand Respondent ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------- 10/23.08.2013 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the matter of bail. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that initially a case was registered under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code when the wife of this appellant was found dead. On submission of the charge- sheet, charges were framed under Section 304B and 302 of Indian Penal Code, which was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad. However, the court did not find the allegation to be true either under Section 304B or under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. However, the court did convict this appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code though no evidence whatsoever ...
Chittaranjan Maity Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 633 of 2013 with I. A. No. 5498 of 2013 Chittaranjan Maity ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another .. Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate ------ 12/ 23.08.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.4.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2011, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 1.4.2011 passed by Sri Taufique Ahmed, learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 3030 of 2009 / T.R. No. 1512 of 2011, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence und...
Shiv Muni Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1226 of 2012 Shiv Muni Ram Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Central Bureau of Investigation Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate ----- 4/23.08.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to take all the points, which have been taken in this application, during trial. Reserving the said liberty, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. It be observed that the court below shall not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of this case. (R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT...
Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
1 W.P.(S)No.1073of2006 (InthematterofanapplicationunderArticle226ofthe ConstitutionofIndia) AnilKumarPandey Petitioner Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhand 2.TheDirectorGeneralofPolice,Jharkhand,Ranchi 3.TheDeputyInspectorGeneralofPolice,J.A.P.,Ranchi 4.TheCommandant,J.A.P.I,Ranchi ... Respondents ForthePetitioner :M/s.Dr.S.N.Pathak,SeniorAdvocate, BirjuThakur,FayyazAhmad, RishikeshGiri&RakeshKumarRoy, Advocate FortheRespondents :Mr.SaketUpadhyay,J.C.toA.G. Present HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ByCourt: Thepetitionerhaschallengedthepenaltyorderdated 08.12.2003, the appellate order dated 29.04.2004 and the revisionalorderdated08.10.2005.2. Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,thepetitionerwas appointed as a Constable in Bihar Military Police and at the relevanttimeintheyear,2003,hewaspostedasConstableDriver withJharkhandArmedPoliceatHazaribagh. On05.07.2003and 18.07.2003oneRajKumarVermasubmittedacomplaintagainst the petitioner and on such complaint, a charge memo dated 16.08.2003wasserveduponth...
Rajejendra Singh and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5947 o1. Rajendra Singh 2. Rakesh Kumar ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar For the State : A. P.P. ----- 3/22.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Chauparan P.S. Case No.72 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.1262 of 2013. The case relates to theft of a truck and the petitioner Rajendra Singh was apprehended along with the truck itself, and he named the petitioner Rakesh Kumar also to be involved in the theft. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners Rajendra Singh and Rakesh Kumar are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) e...
Pramila Devi Vs. Manila Verma and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3471 of 2013 Parmila Devi ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Manilal Verma 2. Brahmanand Singh ... ... ... Respondents CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : M/s V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Bhaiya V. Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sinha For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan 5/22.08.2013 Admit this application. Notices had already been served upon respondents. Contesting respondent No. 1 had already appeared. Call for the L.C. Record of Misc. Case No. 7 of 2012. In the meantime, interim order passed on 21.06.2013 will continue. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit...
Lata Devi and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI C.M.P.No.375of2012 LataDevi Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner : None FortheState : J.C.toG.P.III 03/Dated:22 nd August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.:1. When the matter is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.Neitherthematterismentionednoranybodyappearsonbehalfofthe petitioner.2. Hence,thispetitionisdismissedfordefault. (D.N.Patel,A.C.J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Ajay/...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »