Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; there was affair between this petitioner and the victim girl; she was moving with the petitioner voluntarily; nothing has been done against her consent; there is no allegation of any ill-behaviour; petitioner is in custody since January 2011.3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of kidnapping the minor girl by this petitioner. 4. The girl has been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she has supported the said allegation; she has made direct allegation against the petitioner.5. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and material against him, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Petitioner's prayer for bail is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner, Samsuddin Ansari is moved by Sri Kailash Prasad Deo, counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. A.K. Prasad, Additional P.P. and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, counsel for the informant. It is alleged that when petitioner was standing near the place of occurrence along with Pranav Dutta, Manas Dutta and Chintu Dutta, three unknown persons came on motorcycle and talked with petitioner and other accused. During the said talk, petitioner pointed out his finger towards the deceased. 2. It is further alleged that after sometime two unknown persons opened fire on the deceased, due to that deceased died. It is further alleged that petitioner has some inimical relation with the deceased in connection with money transaction. It is submitted by Sri K.P. Deo, learned counsel for petitioner that there is absolutely no legal evidence in the case diary to show that petitioner has any dispute with the deceased in connection with money transaction. 3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 413, 414, 440, 120B, 109 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 54(1) of the Jharkhand Mining Act.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Earlier the land belonged to the petitioner but subsequently it was acquired by the E.C.L.; sale and purchase of the coal was from the premises of the E.C.L. not from the petitioner's land; there is no cogent material on record to show his complicity; petitioner is in custody since February 2011; he is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding.4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail, but has not disputed the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 337 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he had instituted a case with Jora Pokhar Police being Jora Pokhar P.S. Case No.31/2011; the informant party had earlier attacked on the members of the petitioner party and tried to outrage the modesty of the female members; the informant party have criminal history. 3. They are aggressors; there is no direct allegation of any assault against this petitioner; he is in custody since February, 2011 without any cogent basis; he is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding.4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail, but has not controverter the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.5. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
The petitioner has filed the instant application for setting aside the order dated 07.03..2011 passed by the Additional Sessions JudgeI cumSpecial Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C.4A/08AHDR whereby the court below has dismissed the petition dated 05.09.2010 filed by the petitioner praying therein for holding and declaring him as an approver in the instant case under the provision of Section 306 Cr.P. C and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is now pending in the court of Additional Sessions JudgeIcumSpecial Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad.2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an application on 05.09.2010 before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad for holding and declaring him as an approver and also for seeking pardon in the instant case. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he shall piously follow the course of proceeding prescribed under Sections 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned court bel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner, Binay Kumar Das @ Vinay Kumar Das is moved by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Mr. Santosh Kumar, counsel for complainant. 2. At the outset, Sri Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep the complainant as his wife with all respect, honour and dignity.3. Sri Santosh Kumar appearing for the complainant has stated that his client has no objection in residing with the petitioner, if petitioner gives an undertaking that he will keep her in his house as his wife with all respect, honour and dignity and he will not torture her in future. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioner, above named, to surrender in the court below by 6th May 2011. On that day, complainant will also remain physically present in the court below. 6. If the petitioner surrenders by that time, learned court below ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners, Indradeo Saha, Kusum Lal Saha, Bimla Devi is moved by Sri Gautam Kumar, counsel for the petitioners, opposed by Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, Additional P.P and Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel for the complainant.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is husband, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law and they undertake that they will keep the complainant as wife of petitioner no. 1 with all respect and dignity.3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that if petitioners give the aforesaid undertaking, then the complainant have no objection in residing with the petitioners.4. In view of the aforesaid submissions raised by the parties, I allow this anticipatory bail application and I direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below by 10th May 2011. 5. On that date the complainant is also directed to remain present in the court below and in that event, the court be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the case registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; at the time of occurrence he was in jail custody and as such the entire allegation regarding his complicity is wholly false and baseless; the petitioner has been implicated due to land dispute and enmity. 3. The petitioner has been remanded in custody on 5.8.10 and since then he is in custody in connection with the instant case; the petitioner is a local permanent resident and there is no chance of his absconding.4. Learned A.P.P opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that though the petitioner was in jail custody, he managed murder of the deceased; the petitioner has also got criminal antecedents. However, he has not disputed the other factual contentions submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and cir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2010 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge in Parsudih P.S. Case No.188 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No.2609 of 2009 was rejected and a prima facie case was found against the petitioner under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(I) (XII) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was called upon to stand charged by the said order.2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant-O.P.No.2 Monika Bishwas by presenting a written report before Parsudih Police Station (East Singhbhum) stated that she was posted as Head Ticket Collector at Jharsuguda Railway Station and she was residing there in Qaurter No.A22/3 Railway Colony, Jharsuguda within the district of Jharsuguda (Orissa). In the year 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the case registered under Section 364(A) IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he is not named in the F.I.R; subsequently, his name was introduced on the basis of some secret information; nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession; the allegation of recovery of Rs. 8,000/- from his possession is wholly false and connoted; there was no specific identification to say that it was the incriminating money. 3. The amount was of the petitioner which has been forcibly seized by the police; there is no other cogent material against the petitioner; co-accused Nageshwar Mahto and Wakil Mahto with almost similar allegations and materials against have been granted bail by this Court in B. A. Nos. 8900 & 9340 of 2010 respectively; the petitioner is in custody since October 2010 without any cogent basis; the petitioner is a local permanent resident and there...
Tag this Judgment!