Jharkhand Court September 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.
Anant Kumar Tiwari Alias Pappu Tiwari Alias Anand Alias Chappu Tiwari ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2416 of 2013 Anant Kumar Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari @ Anand @ Chappu Tiwari ... Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State : - Mr. S. Mahto, A.P.P. 03/20.09.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Anant Kumar Tiwari @ Pappu Tiwari @ Anand @ Chappu Tiwari, is moved by Sri Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri S. Mahto, learned Additional P.P. for the State. This is a case under Sections 379 & 385 of the I.P.C. It is stated that the petitioner is the recovery agent of State Bank of India. It is further stated that father-in-law of complainant purchased a tractor on the basis of hire purchase Agreement. Thereafter, he died. It is further stated that after the death of father-in-law, complainant came in possession of the said tractor, but he is not depositing the insta...
Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2549 of 2013 Arun Kumar Mishra ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr....Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. K.P.Choudhary For the State: Mr. Prem Prakash APP 2/20.09.2013: This application has been filed for modification of order dated 06.08.2013 passed in ABA No. 1900 of 2013 whereby petitioner was granted bail and directed to surrender in the court below by 19.08.2013. It is submitted that due to communication gap, petitioner could not surrender by the aforesaid period. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and modify the order dated 06.08.2013 passed in ABA No. 1900 of 2013 by extending the date of surrender in the court below by 01.10.2013. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-...
Guddu Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3345 of 2013 Guddu Mandal ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy For the State: Mr. V.S. Sahay , APP 2/20.09.2013: 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/-...
Amresh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.App.(S.J) No.690 of 2013 Amresh Kumar ....................................Appellant VERSUS State of Jharkhand through C.B.I..........Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Appellant: Mr. Laljee Sahay For the C.B.I :Mr. M.Khan 3 /20.9.13. This appeal is admitted for hearing. Issue notice. Call for the lower court record. The provisional bail granted to the above named appellant by the Special Judge, C.B.I.Ranchi in R.C. No.06A of 2003(R) is hereby made absolute subject to payment of fine amount. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the appellant. (R.R. Prasad, J.) ND/...
Badri Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2096 of 2013 Badri Prasad Vishwakarma Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhola Singh Yadav @ Bhola Yadav Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate 02/ 20.09.2013 As prayed, this Cr.M.P . stands dismissed as withdrawn. (D. N. Upadhyay, J.) NKC...
Jayanti Devi and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P(Cr) 198 of 2013 Jayanti Devi &Ors ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand &Ors . .... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Pathak Advocate For the State : J.C to S.C.III 03/20.9.2013 The petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including FIR and the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate,Madhupur under section 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No. 37 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Cas...
Pankaj Choubey Alias Pankaj Kumar Choubey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1530 of 2013 Pankaj Choubey @ Pankaj Kumar Choubey... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed For the State: Mr. Amitabh, APP For the Informant: Mr. N.B.Lal 6/20.09.2013: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Pankaj Choubey @ Pankaj Kumar Choubey is moved by Md. Zaid Ahmed and opposed by Sri Amitabh, learned Additional P.P. and Sri M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the informant. At the out set, both the counsel submit that the parties has settled their dispute out side the court and a compromise petition filed in the court below. Sri M.B. Lal, further informed that in terms of the said compromise, his client had already received Rs. 4,00,000/-. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioner to surrender in the court below by 01.10.2013 and in that event the court below is ...
Rajeshwar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2960 of 2013 Rajeshwar Singh @ Rajeshwar Prasad Singh... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Pandey For the State: Mr. Hatim , APP 2/20.09.2013: 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/-...
Nand Kumar Jha Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2392 of 2013 Nand Kumar Jha ... Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate For the State : - Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P 05/20.09.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Nand Kumar Jha, is moved by Sri P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri G.S. Prasad, learned Additional P.P. for the State. It appears that 08 nos. of demand drafts worth Rs. 63,26,209/- encashed from Central Bank of India, Bistupur Branch in between 22.10.2007 to 24.10.2007 by different persons. It is stated that during the said period, petitioner was working as Manager in the said Branch of the Bank. It is alleged that aforesaid demand drafts have been stolen from Central Bank of India, Panchkuri Branch (W. Bengal) and regarding the theft of aforesaid bank drafts informations given to all the branches of Central Bank of India...
Tagdhu Manjhi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 7196 of 2013 Tagdhu Manjhi Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------- 02/Dated:20. h September, 2013 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is accused in this case registered under Section 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. & Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Act. The counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case of misuse of privilege of bail granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody at present from 15.05.2013 i.e. more than four months. Counsel for the State opposed and has submitted that the petitioner has left to appear before the Court or to do any pairvi from 11.06.2007 and thereafter he was declared as absconder on 16.01.2012 and the permanent warrant was issued, therefore, the petitioner sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »