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 and Kalu Ram. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
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 this is first offence alleged against petitioners. Allegation of Sections 353 and 382 has wrongly been added only in order to make the offence non-bailable as the dispute was with the police. Petitioners are in jail since 14.02.2011. 2. Challan has been filed. Petitioner would undertake not to indulge in any offence in future and would maintain good behaviour during trial. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.3. 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.4. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioners, namely, (1) Ramesh Chand Son of Shri Brijmohan Meena and (2) Kalu Ram Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai Meena, both residents of Sainthal...
Rajesh Kumar. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2010, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 307, 342 and 323 IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.2. Mr. R.D.S. Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the injury report, the injured, Ramavatar, had suffered merely simple injuries. Therefore, the injuries are neither dangerous to life, nor sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, no offence under Section 307 IPC has been made out.3. However, despite the lack of evidence, a charge under Section 307 IPC has been framed against the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that according to Illustration (c) of Section 307 IPC, the causing of an injury, o...
Anil Kumar SharmA. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
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 principal accused in present case is V.D. Bhatt, who was Branch Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Collectorate Branch, Bharatpur. Petitioner had availed of Over Draft facility in his account when co-accused V.D. Bhatt was Branch Manager of the Bank. At that time co-accused V.D. Bhatt took 12 signed Cheques from him towards security. All cheques were of the same series and given at the same time in the relationship of mutual faith and trust. Petitioner for the first time came to know about this incident from the newspapers and he immediately on 10.01.2009 wrote to the Assistant General Manager of the SBBJ, Bharatpur Zone, that co-accused V.D. Bhatt had taken 12 Cheques in such manner towards security.3. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused V.D. Bhatt, in the similar manner...
Ram Singh and SavaliyA. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Both bail applications arise out of same FIR No.207/2005, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur, therefore they are being decided by this common order. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners have been made accused with aid of Section 149 IPC only when the prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that on the statement of solitary witness, namely, PW-1 Megh Singh. It is contended that in this application prosecution did not file any challan against petitioners. Challan was filed only against five accused persons. One of the accused person died and remaining nine were convicted with the aid of Section 302/149 IPC. Except those four who were assigned specific injuries on the person of deceased, sentence of six accused has been suspended by the court. 3. Though the prosecution originally kept ...
Piyush GuptA. Vs. the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jai ...
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2011
1. Although this case is listed today in the category of defects, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this case is being decided at this state. This petition has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2008, passed by respondent No.1, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed that the amount of Rs.70,000/- deposited by the petitioner shall be released to respondent No.2, Mr. Chandra Mohan Yadav. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- vide judgment dated 24.01.2007.2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judge. The Judge while suspending the sentence directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the pecuniary punishment i.e. Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner did so. However, subsequently ...
Sewaram Swami. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, Headquarter Shrimadhopur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has refused to take cognizance against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mahesh Kumar Swami and Dr. Uma K. Raghuvanshi, respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.10.2008, Mahesh Kumar Swami lodged a written report at Police Station Thoi, District Sikar with regard to an incident which had allegedly taken place on 30.09.2008, wherein he alleged that Kanaram and Om Prakash, the petitioner's son, had assaulted Sanwar Mal. Due to this assault, Sanwar Mal was injured and he was rushed to the S.D.M. Hospital, Jaipur. However, during the course of treatment, Sanwar Mal expired on 02.10.2008. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered a FIR, FIR No.142/2008 for offences under Sections 302, 34 IPC. During the course of inve...
Rajendra Kumar. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for CBI and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.2. This bail application has been filed by petitioner Rajendra Kumar on the ground that petitioner, being a Cashier in the Bank, was working under supervision of principal accused V.D. Bhatt. It was V.D. Bhatt, who misused user ID of petitioner and thereby made various fictitious debit and credit entries in different accounts and wrongfully withdrew the amount from those accounts.3. It is argued that during search by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'the CBI'), blank cheques of different account-holders were found in possession of principal accused V.D. Bhatt. Case of petitioner is similar to that of accused Gopal Singh. Co-accused V.D. Bhatt by using his user ID also made fourteen entries in different accounts, but the CBI did not file challan against him. Learned counsel submitted that his case is disting...
Jai Prakash @ Sunny and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 498A, 307 and 324 IPC against the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2010, on the basis of the Parchabayan of Smt. Deepa, a FIR, FIR No.132/2010 was registered at Mahila Police Station Ajmer for the aforementioned offences.2. In her Parchabayan, she has clearly stated that she was married to petitioner No.1, Jai Prakash @ Sunny on 22.02.2008. Ever since her marriage, she has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty both by her husband and by her mother-in-law, Smt. Sushila Devi. She further claimed that on the fateful day, while she was informing her parents about the fact that she has been assaulted by the husband, the petitioners snatched the telephone and tried to hang her. However, with the interception of her parents,...
Kishni @ Kishan Singh. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2011
1. Both bail applications arise out of same FIR No.207/2005, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur, therefore they are being decided by this common order. 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 petitioners have been made accused with aid of Section 149 IPC only when the prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that on the statement of solitary witness, namely, PW-1 Megh Singh. It is contended that in this application prosecution did not file any challan against petitioners. Challan was filed only against five accused persons. One of the accused person died and remaining nine were convicted with the aid of Section 302/149 IPC.2. Except those four who were assigned specific injuries on the person of deceased, sentence of six accused has been suspended by the court. Though the prosecution originally kept the ...
Mahadev SharmA. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
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 petitioner was simultaneously made accused in three more cases of same nature. 2. Except those three cases, there is no other previous case registered against petitioner. Petitioner is in jail for last two months. Trial may take a long. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.3. 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. 4. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Mahadev Sharma Son of Jawaharlal Sharma, Resident of Jhamra, Tehsil Bayana, Presently Resident of Shubhash Nagar, Bharatpur (presently confined in Sub Jail Bayana) be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.37/2011, Police Station Bayana, District ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »