Rajasthan Jaipur Court April 2011 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.
Ramesh Chand Tank. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that in regard to same incident for which originally FIR was registered for offence under Sections 16/54 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, another FIR for offence under Sections 61 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was also registered. 3. Maximum sentence therefore is three years. Petitioner has already been granted bail by this court in main case registered under Sections 16/54 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, vide order dated 20.04.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. 5. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Ramesh Chand Tank Son of Shri Ramlal, Resident ...
Devraj. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant JVVNL and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and that there is no other previous case registered against petitioner.3. Petitioner has been in jail since 03.10.2010. The offence is triable by a court of Magistrate. Trial may take a long. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Devraj Son of Shri Mangi Lal, Resident of Village Bhasu, Police Station Toda Rai Singh, District Tonk (presently confined in the Jail) be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.264/2010, Police Statio...
Om Prakash Saini. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2004, issued by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) for holding an inquiry under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act ('the Act', for short), the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as a member from ward No.30 of Municipal Board, Chirawa ('the Board', for short) for the term 1982 1986. During this term, he was also elected as a Vice-Chairman of the Board. During this term, since the Chairman was suspended, the charge of Chairman of the Board was handed-over to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to act as the Chairman till 1986. Thereafter, in 1986, an Administrator was appointed to look after the charge of the Board. In 1990, the petitioner was again elected as a member of the Board.2. However, during this tenure, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet wherein it was alleged that in his earlier tenure as the Chairman, between the years 1982 to 1986, he had wron...
Smt. Sheelo Bai. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that in medico-legal-report of deceased, presence of kerosene oil was not found and a coordinate bench of this court vide its order dated 26.10.2010 in Bail Application No.9606/2010 filed by co-accused Sheetal Das, father-in-law, was persuaded to grant bail to him under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on consideration of difference between parcha bayan of deceased recorded on 29.092009 and dying declaration recorded on 30.09.2009. Case of the petitioner, who is mother-in-law, stands on same footing. 3. This court on last date of hearing directed Public Prosecutor to verify age of petitioner. On verification from the Investigating Officer, learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is actually seventy years old. Being a lady aged 70 years, she is entitled to benefit of Section 437 of the Cr....
Avesh, Jagdish and Pappu. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that dispute had taken place at marriage function. 2. Petitioners and complainant are related to each other. Petitioners were invited in marriage by complainant and there they consumed liquor and then dispute arose. Cross FIR has also been filed. It is alleged that one of the member of complainant-party sustained fracture in right hand. 3. Many other offences are bailable. Petitioners are in jail for last quite some time. There is no other criminal case ever registered against petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. 5. It is therefore ordered that ac...
Gordhan Khinchi. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that there was a matrimonial dispute between petitioner and deceased for offence under Section 12 of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was filed at the instance of deceased. 2. Deceased was married to petitioner in 1996. She was residing separately with her parents for last two-and-a-half-year. It was clearly stated by her brother Ashok, father Hajari Lal and mother Kamla Devi in their statements recorded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. that deceased was patient of depression and was under treatment. There was no cause of immedaite abement, although unfortunatley deceased overacted to the family life and took extreme step of committing suicide by putting herself on fire. 3. Petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2011 and since then he is in jail. Challan has been filed. There ...
Umrao, Manohari and Mahesh @ KallA. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Pub ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that there are cross-cases between the parties. There are four injured from the side of injured.2. Though there are three women received injuries by sharp-edged-weapon from the side of accused-petitioners and one person Dhaman @ Raman has lost vision of his right eye and received multiple fractures on right side of facial bone. There are eight injured from the side of complainant but all have received simple injuries. Challan has been filed. Petitioners are in jail for last one month. 3. Trial may take a long. There is no other criminal case ever registered against petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to releas...
Jagdish. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that prosecutrix is a married woman.2. According to medical-examination-report, her age is in between 17-19 years. In her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. she did not make any allegation of rape against petitioner, although she stated that she accompanied petitioner at her own free will and went with him to different places, namely, Bhilwara, Jodhpur, Ramdeora and Itawa, and they stayed together in different hotels/Inns. In court statement again she repeated same averments about her visit to different places along-with petitioner. 3. Tenor of her statement clearly shows that she was a consenting party and had voluntarily gone with petitioner. In one statement though she sought to suggest about rape but totality of statement especially when she says that she travelle...
Harish Chauhan @ Juggan. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that though petitioner has been made accused with other two co-accused for offence under Sections 341 and 394/34 of the IPC on recovery of one thousand rupees and one motorcycle. Bail has been denied to petitioner by learned court below because other accused, namely, Deependra Singh @ Kaushal had 12 cases, Vinod Sharma @ Kailash had 11 cases and Bahadur Singh @ Bahadur had 8 cases against them.3. As per details furnished with challan papers, no other case has been registered against petitioner. This is first case in which he has been made accused. Petitioner should be given an opportunity to reform himself and that he would undertake not to indulge in any offence in future and would maintain good conduct while on bail. Trial may take a long. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applica...
Neela, District Jalore and Others Vs. Branch Manager, Lic of India, Je ...
Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2011
G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER, J. This appeal arises out of order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Jalore whereby the complaint was dismissed. However, the Non-applicant Life Insurance Corporation was directed to refund the amount of premium to the Complainant which was paid by the insured. The Husband of the Complainant Late Shri Rasinga Ram had obtained a life policy for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 1.3.2007 whereby the Complainant was appointed as nominee under the policy. The Life Assured (LA) died on 10.5.2007 and thereafter a claim was filed with the Insurance Corporation but the Insurance Corporation repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 29.2.2008 saying that the birth certificate produced by the LA was found forged. The same plea was taken by the Insurance Corporation in reply to the complaint. The learned DCF also dismissed the complaint on this ground alone. We have heard both the counsels and gone through the file. The allegation of the Complainant was th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »