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.
Baburam Marandi Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.App. (D.B) No.1083 of 2006 Baburam Marandi .................. Appellant VERSUS State of Jharkhand ..................... ....Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Appellant :None For the State :5. 19.9.13. I.A.No.6024 of 2013 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press the Interlocutory application. Earlier also nobody had appeared. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A is rejected as not pressed. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ( D.N.Upadhyay, J.) ND/...
Blichdan Kujur ? Bilisdan Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.App. (D.B) No.23 o1. Blichdan @ Bilisdan Kujur 2.Joljus Kujur.............................. Appellants VERSUS State of Jharkhand ..................... ....Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Appellants :Mr. Sunil Kumar For the State : A.P.P 6 / 19.9.13. I.A.No.6640 of 2013 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State, we do not find any fresh material for reconsideration of the prayer for bail of the appellant no.2 whose prayer for bail had earlier been rejected thrice and that the case of the appellant no.2 stands on similar footing as that of the co-convict, whose prayer for bail has also been rejected by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant no.2 is hereby rejected. The aforesaid I.A stands disposed of. (R.R.Prasad, J.) ( D.N.Upadhyay, J.) ND/...
Bablu Murmu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8338 of 2013 Bablu Murmu Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR. For the Petitioner : - Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : - Mr. V.K. Tiwary, A.P.P. 02/19.09.2013 Bail application filed by Bablu Murmu, in connection with Boarijore (Lalmatiya) P.S. Case No. 112 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1191 of 2011 (S.T. No. 227 of 2012), pending in the court of District & Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Godda, is moved by Sri S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri V.K. Tiwary, learned Additional P.P. for the State. Earlier the bail prayer of petitioner rejected after considering the merit of the case. It appears that still the person, who identified this petitioner during T.I. Parade, has not been examined. Under the said circumstance, at this stage, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail prayer of petitioner. Accordingly, bail prayer of peti...
Prem Kataruka Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 1667 of 2012 Prem Kataruka Petitioner Versus The Union of India & ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV KUMAR GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Md. M.Khan (ASGI) For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate 11/Dated: 19 th September, 2013 Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.:1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that out of proportion Performance Related Pay has been distributed to the persons who are working with the respondent no.5 whereas counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submitted that there is no question of any payment made to any of the employees working under Coal India Ltd. illegally and whatever amount is paid is not a Performance Related Pay, but, it is recoverable advance.2. Learned counsel appearing ...
Surendra Nayak Alias Surrender Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6993 of 2013 Surendra Nayak @ Surrender Nayak ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 2/ 19.09.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 189, 353, 387, 504 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Gorhar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1766 of 2013. From the FIR, it appears that the house of the petitioner was raided by the police in connection with another case, but the petitioner was not found in the house. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner had threatened the Police Officer, who had raided his house. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Surendra Nayak @ Surrender Nayak, on bail. Accordingly, t...
Kashibul Shaikh and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6987 o1. Kashibul Shaikh 2. Rakibul Shaikh 3. Hakim Shaikh 4. Kalu Shaikh Versus The State of Jharkhand with B. A. No. 7541 o1. Asmaul Sk.2. Dipu Sk. Versus The State of Jharkhand -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 2/ 19.09.2013 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 counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioners have been made accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 194, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 231 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 598 of 2010. The FIR was lodged by the police officer alleging that the petitioner Asmaul Sk. lodged a wrong FIR before the police with respect to a case, in w...
Sukhendu Munda Alias Ranjit Alias Bablu Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 7102 of 2013 Sukhendu Munda @ Ranjit @ Bablu ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Warda Khan, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 19.09.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this bail application. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr....
Shankar Pasi Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 8847 of 2013 Shankar Pasi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 2/ 19.09.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 812 of 2013. The case relates to theft in a house. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Shankar Pasi , on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Kotwali (S) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2...
Jharkhand Against Corruption T Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 6928 of 2013 with W.P .(PIL) No. 687 of 2012 Jharkhand Against Corruption Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others ........ Respondents CORAM: HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV KUMAR GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Mr Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G. For Respondent No.11: M/s Pandey Neeraj Rai, Soumya S. Pandey, Advocates For Respondent No.12: M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Ashok Kr. Yadav, Advocates 12/Dated: 19 th September, 2013 Oral order: Per D.N. Patel, J.:1. Counsel appearing for the petitioner after going through the counter affidavits and also after hearing respondent no.12, who is applicant in I.A. No. 6928 of 2013, seeks permission to delete respondent no. 12 from the array of the respondents.2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Accordin...
Sonu Dubey Vs. the State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6995 of 2013 Sonu Dubey Versus The State of Jharkhand with B. A. No. 7055 of 2013 Law Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand with B. A. No. 7071 of 2013 Kush Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Prasad, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -------- 2/ 19.09.2013 All these three 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 302, 120(B), 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 707 of 2011. The case relates to abduction and murder of the brother of the informant and the case was instituted against unknown. It appears that other ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »