Patna Court November 2000 Judgments
Dilip Ojha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole petitioner for quashing of the Order dated 21-10-2000 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas, Bokaro has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The short facts giving rise to the application that the petitioner has been made an accused in Chandankyari PS Case No. 66 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 379, 411, 414, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that illegal mining work is being carried on and the local criminals are involved in extortion of Rs. 50-100/- each truck passing through Manpur Chowk and Bhojudih More. On this information, the police officials reached Manpur chowk and saw a number of bags containing coal but the people gathered there already fled away.On enquiry from the local people, they came to know that the accused-persons including t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Narayan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
S.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Annexures-4, 6 and 8 passed by different authorities under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Deceased respondent No. 5 (whose heirs have been subsequently substituted in this Court) had filed a petition claiming pre-emption in respect of survey plot No. 713, an area of 1 bigha, 1 katha, 8 dhurs and 10 dhurid of land under Khata No. 70 recorded in the name of the transferor, respondent No. 6. The petitioner purchased the said land from respondent No. 6 on 19.12.1975. When respondent No. 5 filed the case under Section 16(3) of the Act, an objection was raised that he was an adjoining Raiyat as co-sharers in plot No. 712 along with Ashutosh Yadav and Uday Narain Yadav and the petitioner has no right to claim pre-emption. Ashutosh Yadav and Uday Narain Yadav are said to have sworn affi...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the Complainant in Complaint Case No. 40 C of the 1995 against the impugned order dated 16.1.1996 by which the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara at Bhojpur had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short).2. In this matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. P.P. and learned Counsel for the Opposite Part No. 2 Amrendra Singh have been heard. No one turned up on behalf of Opposite Part Nos. 3 and 4.3. The allegation, in brief, as made out in the complaint petition against Amrendra Singh, Inspector of Police, and two other police officers was that on 4.2.1995 they along with a police force had entered into the house of the complainant, searching the rooms and from a box they had taken Rs. 18,000/- as well Rs. 12,000/- from the almirah of his father, without giving any seizure-list even on demand and they also took away one Scooter of the brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad and ors. Etc. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer-cum-collector Un ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
R.N. Prasad, J. 1. Both the cases are inter-related, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 106/91 (R) prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 17-9-1990 passed in B.P.L.E. case No. 73/90 whereby respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the land in question within two weeks. In M. J.C. No. 78/93 (R) prayer has been made by respondent No. 3 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the petitioners for violating the order dated 22-1-1991 whereby direction was given to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the land in question was acquired by the State of Bihar for establishment of industrial units. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 established iron and steel industry over the land acquired. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force and a dispute arose whether the respondent No. 3 is estate and it vested in the State o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Kali Das Manjhi and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
R.N. Prasad, J.1. Reference has been made by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence of six convicts, whereas appeal has been filed by the convicts for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Appellant Kali Das Manjhi, Kalu Manjhi, Dubraj Manjhi, Rai Singh Manjhi, Kalyan Manjhi and Tara Chand Manjhi have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to death. Rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in defa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›