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.
Kasim Alias Kasim HussaIn Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3560 of 2013 Kasim @ Kasim Hussain... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar For the State: Mr. Md. 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 Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.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/-...
Prashant Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2415 of 2013 Prashant Kumar Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Suchendra Prasad, A.P .P. 03/20.09.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Prashant Kumar, in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 779 of 2013, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is moved by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Suchendra Prasad, learned Additional P.P. for the State. Apart from other allegations, it is also alleged that petitioner had tried to commit rape upon the informant. Thus, the case of petitioner is different from other co- accused, who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly,...
Md Modo Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3356 of 2013 Md. Modo ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Prakash For the State: Mr. Amitabh , 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/-...
Dilshad Ahmad Alias Dilshad Ahmed Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 7192 of 2013 Dilshad Ahmad @ Dilshad Ahmed Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State :A.P.P. --------- 02/Dated:20. h September, 2013 The petitioner has been made accused for the offence registered under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the petitioner is in custody since 18.05.2013. It is also submitted that the victim, Parvati Kumari @ Sweety has been examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and she stated that the petitioner had taken her to his father's place in Delhi where his father had reprimanded the petitioner and asked them to return and while they were returning home the police apprehended them. He has also submitted that a...
Rose Valley Hotels and Entertainments Ltd and ors Vs. State of Jharkha ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 55 of 2013 ----- Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainments Ltd. & Ors.. ....Petitioners -Versus- State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... .... .... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 2/ 20.09.2013 Learned counsel for the respondent has requested for one week's time to take instruction and file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of interim relief. Since the time has been given to the State for taking instruction, question with regard to grant of interim order will be considered on the next date. Put up this case on 27th September, 2013. (P.P. Bhatt, J.) SI/...
Rashid Ali Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1231 of 2011 Rashid Ali ... ....Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Mosarrat Johan @ Musarrat Jahan @ Mussarraf Jahan .......Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Das For the State: Mr. Amresh Kumar, APP 7/20.09.2013: This application has been filed for cancellation of bail of O.P. No.2. It appears that O.P. No. 2 has been granted bail on the basis of agreement entered in between the parties. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 after grant of bail is not honouring the condition laid down in the mutual agreement. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail granted to O.P. No. 2 be cancelled. It is relevant to mention that the said agreement entered in between the parties out side the court without any intervention of court. Under the said circumstance, if O.P. No. 2 is not obeying and/or complying the terms and conditions of agreement, then the petitioner has remedy under the Contr...
Narendra Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 129 of 2013 Narendra Kumar . Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & another .... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : J.C. to Sr. S.C.II For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate 04/Dated: 20 th September, 2013 1. This application has been preferred mainly for the reason that the order passed by this Court in the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 477 of 2010 especially what is stated in paragraph 4 thereof has not been paid to the petitioner. The rest 70% of legally payable amount was to be paid in one month and, thereafter, much time has been lapsed.2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the total amount payable was at Rs. 5,72,366/, out of which, 30% of amount has already been paid and, therefore, direction was given to make the payment of rest 70% ...
Tanbir Mian and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 878 o1. Tanbir Mian @ Tanvir Ansari 2. Imran Seikh @ Mian ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 20.09.2013 This application will be heard. Admit. Call for the Lower Court Records. During the pendency of this revision application, the petitioners, Tanbir Mian @ Tanvir Ansari and Imran Seikh @ Mian, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, in connection with G.R. No. 32 of 2000 / Trial No. 10 of 2011. (H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr....
Neelam Vishwakarma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 398 of 2011 ----- Neelam Vishwakarma .... ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sukhdeo Mistry 3.Saraswati Devi 4.Jitendra Vishwakarma @ Pappu 5.Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma @ Mantu 6.Priti Kumari @ Gudia 7.Sunil Vishwakarma 8.Manju Devi 9.Ram Chandra Mistry 10.Kamlesh Singh .... .... ... .. ....Respondents ----- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate For the State : J.C. to G.P. VI ----- 5/ 20.09.2013 The present petitioner by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ /order for partly quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.6.2011 in C.P. Case No.638 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby the Learned court below has issued summons against the husband of the petitioner and has not issued summons to the respondent nos. 2 t...
Jamuna Harizan ? Jamuna Ahirwa Vs. Central Coal Field Limited and O
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 846 of 2011 Jamuna Harizan @ Jamuna Ahirwar . Petitioner Versus The Central Coal Fields Limited & ors. .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate 13/Dated: 20 th September, 2013 1. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that they have prepared a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rupees ten lakhs) and they are going to deposit the same today before the Registrar General of this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. Liberty was reserved with the respondents as per the order passed in the L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010 dated 6th March, 2013 and in view of that liberty, inquiry was conducted and now it is found ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »