SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramkewal Paswn Alias Kush vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.4362 of 2016
Mayank Kumar …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
with
A.B.A. No.4354 of 2016
Viany Kumar Das …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

08/Dated: 01/05/2017

As prayed for, list both the cases after two weeks of summer vacation for filing supplementary affidavit. Till then, interim order dated 10.11.2016 passed in ABA No. 4362/2016 and order dated 08.11.2016 passed in ABA No.4354/2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4398 of 2016
Ramkewal Paswan @ Kush …… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ranju Devi …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

05/Dated: 01/05/2017

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 23/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 540/2016, the case registered under Sections 498A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/ 4 of DP Act.

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the O.P. NO.2 was married with the petitioner on 27.05.2011 and when to her sasural but since November, 2011 petitioner and the family members started demanding cash, motor-cycle, golden chain and a cow as dowry from the father of O.P. No.2, due to shock her father died and the demand could not be fulfill. It is further alleged that petitioner had also tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on the body of the O.P. No.2. Lastly it is alleged that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage in which other accused persons had also involved. This fact has also been supported by other witnesses.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4378 of 2016
Basudeo Saw …… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Guria Devi …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Mishra, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

06/Dated: 01/05/2017

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mufffasil P.S. Case No. 95/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 640/2016, the case registered under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/ 4 of DP Act.

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the O.P. NO.2 was married with the petitioner on 22.05.2015 and after one month of marriage the accused persons started torturing her for demand of a car. It is alleged that with the consent of the petitioner-husband the accused person, namely, Pawan Saw and Nand Lal Saw molested the O.P. NO.2 during her pregnancy and also assaulted her by iron rod with intention to kill her.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4297 of 2016
Girijesh Kumar Sinha …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

When the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring para-20 of the bail application has submitted that in 53 bank accounts, Rs. 15,27,700/- have been shown deposited and it has been alleged that there has been misappropriation of Rs.26,65,000/- whereas after deducting the said amount of Rs.15,27,700/- only a sum of Rs.11,37,300/- remains.

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file supplementary affidavit as to whether petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the remaining amount of Rs.11,37,300/- which comes to Rs.5,68,650/- or not, which shall be condition for grant of bail to the petitioner.

List this case on 20.06.2017. On that date learned counsel for the informant will inform this Court as to where the money is to be deposited by the petitioner.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4026 of 2016
Anita Hembram @ Anita Hembrum …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Jha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

05/Dated: 01/05/2017

Under order dated 08.03.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the amount which has been received under the Swach Bharat Mission. From perusal of office note dated 24.03.2017 it appears that the said affidavit has not been filed till date and the matter was listed on 29.03.2017

. On that date due to strike called by Jharkhand High Court Advocates’ Association the matter could not be taken up and the case was directed to be listed after four weeks.

From perusal of office note dated 26.04.2017 it appears that till date supplementary affidavit has not been filed but the State has filed the counter-affidavit and the case diary has also been received.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already filed the supplementary affidavit on 28.03.2017.

Office is directed to trace out the supplementary affidavit, if any, filed by the petitioner and list this case alongwith the same in the week commencing from 08.05.2017.

Till then, interim order dated 04.10.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4107 of 2016
Debashis Gorain …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

06/Dated: 01/05/2017

Under order dated 27.02.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to add the State of Jharkhand through CBI as O.P. No.2. He was further directed to serve two copies of the bail application to the counsel appearing for the CBI and the matter was directed to be listed after eight weeks.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to add the CBI as O.P. No.2.

List this case after Ten Weeks.

Till then, interim order dated 19.10.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2781 of 2016
Sourabh Shandilya @ Sourabh Sandilya …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mrs. J.Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
For the O. P.No.2 : Mr. A.K.Singh, Advocate

08/Dated: 01/05/2017

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 104/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 270/2016, the case registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that petitioner has filed a Matrimonial Suit No. 24/2016 u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right on 03.12.2016 i.e much prior to lodging of the instant FIR. It further appears that petitioner is husband of the victim girl and there is direct allegation against him for torture the victim girl and ousted her from her matrimonial house for that reason she is insisting the petitioner to leave separately from his parents. It is also informed by the victim-informant that petitioner is going to perform second marriage with another girl.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3429 of 2016
Ashok Kumar Karn …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand Anr. …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Mahato, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P

07/Dated: 01/05/2017

Pursuant to order dated 29.03.2017 both the parties are physically present before this Court alongwith their learned counsels.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the parties have informed this Court that the parties have settled their disputes outside the Court.

It appears that case diary has been received. List this case on 19.06.2017. On that date both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court and also informed this Court as to whether settlement of dispute has been arrived between them outside the Court or not.

Till then, interim order dated 14.09.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3044 of 2016
Archi Choudhury @ Archi …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sulogna Choudhury @ Mishra …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Laik, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. J.Mazumdar, Advocate

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 655/2015, the case registered under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 323, 341, 506, 494, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that under order dated 20.10.2016 the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to O.P. No.2 as ad interim maintenance from the month of September, 2016. Thereafter, O.P. No.2 had filed a complaint case No. 806/2015 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 24.08.2016 before the J.M.,1st Class, Dhanbad in which petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as monetary relief for maintenance of O.P. No.2.

It further appears that against that order the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal No. 146/2016 before Principal District Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the court below vide order dated 12.01.2017 reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f August, 2016.

From perusal of order dated 24.04.2017 it appears that O.P. No.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is paying Rs.5,000/- per month to her as per order dated 20.10.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order passed in Cr. Appeal No. 146/2016 by filing Cr. Revision, which is pending in this Court.

It appears that as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 19.04.2017 passed in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury relying on earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 (3) SCC 129 (Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar V. Raj Kumari Anr.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 25% of the net salary of the husband will be the just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife.

In the order-sheet of Cr. Appeal No. 146/2016, which was earlier -2- filed by O.P. No.2, the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has recorded that the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.44,000/-, so in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 25% of the net monthly salary comes to Rs.11,000/-. On 24.04.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instruction as to whether petitioner is ready to pay 25% of his net monthly salary i.e. Rs.11,000/- per month to O.P. No.2 or not and the matter was directed to be listed on 01.05.2017.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.11,000/- per month to O.P. No.2 as ad interim maintenance.

In that view of the matter, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M.,Dhanbad, in connection with C.P. Case No. 655/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., subject to the furthe condition that on the date of surrender petitioner shall deposit Rs.22,000/- in the court below for the month of April, 2017 and May, 2017 as ad interim maintenance for O.P. No.2.

Thereafter the O.P .No.2 shall appear and on her appearance and on proper verification the court below shall release the aforesaid amount in favour of O.P .No.2.

Petitioner thereafter will deposit the monthly ad interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- from June,2017 onwards before the trial court latest by 15th day of every month of English Calender till the disposal of Cr. Revision, which is pending in this Court.

It is made clear that i f petitioner defaults to make payment of ad interim maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month for two successive months, it shall be open for the O.P. No.2 to file an application for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, at
once, through FAX.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3022 of 2016

1. Binny Kumari @ Bini Kumari

2. Baban Prasad Sharma …… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Advocate

07/Dated: 01/05/2017

As prayed for, list this case on 29.06.2017 alongwith ABA
No.3332/2016.

Till then, interim order dated 24.11.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3488 of 2016
Vikash Saw @ Vikash Kumar Saw @ Bikki …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Amrita Kumari Mandal …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate

07/Dated: 10/04/2017

Under order dated 10.04.2017, petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,10,000/- to O.P.No.2 by way of one time settlement.

Today, when the case is called out, petitioner has produced to cheques bearing No.000665 of Rs. 1,00,000/- and No.000666 of Rs. 1,10,000/- in the name of O.P.No.2- Amrita Kumar Mandal.

Let the aforesaid two cheques ( original) be handed over to the O.P. No.2 and the Photostat copy of the same be kept on record.

List this case on 12.06.2017. On that that O.P.No.2 will inform this court as to whether both the cheques were encashed or not ?

Till then, interim order dated 16.09.2016 shall continue. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.149 of 2017
Rana Shashi Kumar Singh @ Rana Singh …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vinod Tiwari …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Advocate

06/Dated: 01/05/2017

Pursuant to order dated 13.02.2017, petitioner and O.P. No.2 alongwith their counsels are physically present.

After some persuasion, both the parties are agreed to resolve their dispute through the process of mediation.

Learned counsel for the both the parties have requested that the case may be referred to JHALSA, Nyay Sadan, Doranda Ranchi for resolving the dispute between the parties through mediation.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is referred to the Secretary-cum-Coordinator, JHALSA, Nyay Sadan, Doranda Ranchi. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Secretary-cum-Coordinator, JHALSA, Nyay Sadan, Doranda Ranchi, on 15.05.2017 at 11:00 a.m. The Coordinator himself or nominate two mediators, who will try to explore the possibility of settlement of dispute and will submit a report to this court on or before 19.06.2017.

It appears that vide order dated 13.02.2017 case diary was called for, but from office note dated 28.04.2017 it appears that the same has not been received.

Office is directed to send an express reminder for transmission of case diary by 19.06.2017.

List this case on 19.06.2017. On that date both the parties shall remain physically present before this Court, so that after going through the report, final order may be passed.

Till then, interim order dated 13.02.2017 shall continue.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to court below as also the Secretary-cum-Coordinator, JHALSA, Nyay Sadan, Doranda Ranchi.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2319 of 2016
Din Dayal Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Pramila Devi …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. NO.2 : Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

Under order dated 06.04.2017 both the parties were directed to remain physically present before this court on 01.05.2017 and the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the O.P. No.2 by way of diet and conveyance allowances.

Today, when the case is called out, petitioner has paid Rs. 1,000/- to O.P.No.2, which she has received.

On query made from O.P. No.2 as to whether she in a position to engage lawyer for conducting her before the court below, otherwise this court provide one lawyer from the panel of the Jharkhand Legal Services Committee, she replied that she has already engaged lawyer.

It appears that O.P.No.2 is a house wife and the petitioner is a student.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to seen instruction from his client as to whether he is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the O.P. No.2 by way of one time compensation under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme.

Further, it appears that case diary has been received. List this case on 14.06.2017. On that learned counsel for the petitioner will inform this court as to whether petitioner is ready to pay the aforesaid amount or not, so that final order may be passed.

Till then, interim order dated 18.07.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.992 of 2017

1. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey

2. Mrinal Manish …… Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Shashikant Shekhar …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

03./Dated: 01/05/2017

Pursuant to order dated 23.02.2017, the two petitioners and the father of O.P.No.2 , namely, Suresh Rai have appeared before this court but no power of attorney or any authorization letter has bee produced on behalf of the O.P.No.2 for appearance of his father in his place.

On query, Sri Suresh Rai, father of O.P.No.2 informed this court his son has gone to outside Bokaro, so he could not appear today.

Since it is a complaint case, both the parties must appear before this court.

List this case on 30.06.2017. On the that date to petitioners, namely, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and Mrinal Manish and O.P.No.2, namely, Shashikant Shekhar shall appear before this court, so that in their presence final order may be passed on merit.

Till then, interim order dated 23.02.2017 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.517 of 2017

1. Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan

2. Sita Ram

3. Premchand Sao

4. Upendra Paswan

5. Arbind Paswan

6. Bishwanath Paswan …… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

03/Dated: 01/05/2017

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Manjhion P.S. Case No. 139/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1919/2016, the case registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only because of village politics. It is further usbmited that there is general and omnibus allegation againt all the petitioners.

From perusal of written report given by the informant dated 05.10.2016 to the Officer Incharge, Manjhion P.S. It appears that all the accused persons assaulted the informant by slaps and lathi but petitioner no.1, namely, Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan assaulted the informant by knife with intention to kill him.

Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the petitioner no. 2 to 6, namely, Sita Ram, Premchand Sao, Upendra Paswan, Arbind Paswan and Bishwanath Paswan are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the petitioner no. 2 to 6, namely, Sita Ram, Premchand Sao, Upendra Paswan, Arbind Paswan and Bishwanath Paswan, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.,1st Class, Garhwa, in connection with Manjhion P.S. Case No. 139/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1919/2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

So far petitioner no.1, namely, Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan is concern, there is direct allegation against him for assaulting the informant with knife with an intention to kill him.

Hence, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner no.1, namely, Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan on bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1, namely, Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan is hereby rejected.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.500 of 2017
Rajeev Kumar Pandey …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mantra N.Thakur, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

07/Dated: 01/05/2017

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. List this case again on 13.06.2017.

The interim order dated 27.02.2017 shall stands vacated. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5036 of 2016
Mithun Singh …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.N.Ojha, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

05/Dated: 01/05/2017
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barora P.S. Case No. 61/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 4351/2016, the case registered under Sections 353, 189, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. But from perusal of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it transpires from para-12 of the said counter-affidavit that petitioner is also accused in Baghmara P.S. Case No. 237 of 2013 dated 23.08.2013 registered under Sections 447,341,354,363,325,506 and 34 of the IPC which shows that the petitioner is habitual offender and always involves in such kind of cases.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3659 of 2016
Vijay Kumar Choudhary …… Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Manohar Sahu …… Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate

For the State : A.P.P

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K.Singh, Advocate

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

Nobody appears on repeated calls.

List this case again on 19.06.2017.

Let the LCR be transmitted to the court below.
The interim order dated 29.09.2016 shall stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.44 of 2017
Pramod Kumar Bhokta …… Appellant
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sangeeta Devi …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

03/Dated: 01/05/2017

Under order dated 18.01.2017 appellant was granted provisional bail till 15.05.2017 and both the parties were directed to remain physically present before this Court so that in their presence possibility of rehabilitation to the victim under Jharkhand Victim Compensation Act, 2012 may be explored.

Today, when the case is called out, both the parties are physically present before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready to pay Rs.30,000/- to the O.P. No.2 as ad interim compensation.

In that view of the matter, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.01.2017 is hereby confirmed, subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs.30,000/- in the court below on or before 15.05.2017.

Thereafter the O.P .No.2 shall appear and on her appearance and on proper verification the court below shall release the aforesaid amount in favour of O.P .No.2.

However it is made clear that during investigation and trial of the case, appellant will not influence, intimidate or gain over either the O.P. No.2 or her witnesses and if he will found indulge in the aforesaid act, it will be opened for the O.P. No.2 to file an application for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

On query, O.P. No.2 informed this Court that she is not in a position to engage a lawyer for conducting her case in the court below and she wants an advocate from the panel list for conducting her case in the court below.

O.P. No.2 is directed to appear before the Secretary-cum-Coordinator, DLSA, Giridih on 22.05.2017 at 8:30 a.m. The Secretary is directed to nominate one advocate from the panel list of lawyers for conducting the case of the O.P. No.2.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.238 of 2017
Ibrar Ansari @ Abrar Ansari …… Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

For the Informant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate

08/Dated: 01/05/2017

The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by A.J.C.-I, Ranchi in B.P. No. 1468/2016, whereby the bail petition of the appellant was rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charge has been framed against the appellant on 03.04.2017 under Sections 498A IPC and Section 3(xi) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is further submitted that the appellant is husband of complainant and he is in custody from 21.07.2016.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by A.J.C.-I, Ranchi in B.P. No. 1468/2016 is hereby set aside. The above named appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.1st Class, Ranchi in connection with SC/ ST P.S. Case No. 14/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3980/2015.

However appellant is directed to co-operate with the trial and appears before the court below each and every day and if he fails to do so the trial court may cancel the bail bond of the appellant and shall take all coercive steps for his arrest.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.139 of 2017
Nipun Mishra @ N.Mishra …… Appellant
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ajay Rajak …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Yadav, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 246/2016, whereby the bail petition of the appellant was rejected.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 246/2016, is hereby set aside. The above named appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellant, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 173/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3274/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 130 of 2017

1. Md. Jabbar Ansari @ Jabbar Ansari

2. Khabir Ansari

3. Md. Safiruddin @ Safiruddin Ansari

4. T.V.Yar Md. @ Yar Mohamma Ansari

5. Jamshed Ansari …… Appellants.

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Manju Marandi …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. S.S.Choudhary, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

For the Respondent No.2 : Mrs. J. Mazumdar

08/Dated: 01/05/2017

As prayed for, list this case after summer vacation.
Till then, interim order dated 07.12.2016 shall continue.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.109 of 2017
Amish Kumar …… Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Lal, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by A.J.C.-I, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1240/2016, whereby the bail petition of the appellant was rejected.

Under order dated 19.04.2017 learned counsel for the appellant was directed to take instruction from his client as to whether he is ready to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the informant from January, 2017 or not.

It is pertinent to mention here that in the order dated 19.04.2017 the month of payment of compensation has been wrongly mentioned as September, 2017 in place of January,2017.

Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is ready to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the informant from January, 2017 i.e from the date of appearance of the informant before this Court.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.08.2016 passed by A.J.C.-I, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1240/2016, is hereby set aside. The above named appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellant, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.,Ranchi, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 4144/2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., subject to the further condition that on the date of surrender appellant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- for the month of January,2017 to May,2017 @ Rs.2000/- per month.

Thereafter the informant shall appear and on her appearance and on proper verification the court below shall release the aforesaid amount in favour of informant-Laxmi Baraik.

The appellant is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the informant from the month of June, 2017 onward till the disposal of the case.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.91 of 2017
Sraboni Mukherjee @ Shraboni Mukherjee …… Appellant
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ishwar Hembrom …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. S. Roy, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

For the Informant : Mr. M.K.Dash, Advocate

09/Dated: 01/05/2017

The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I,Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 620/2016, whereby the bail petition of the appellant was rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier one Sanjit Mukherjee who is husband of the present appellant has been granted regular bail on 22.02.2017 in B.A. No. 5508 of 2016 by a Bench of this Court.

It further appears that although the present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner on 17.08.2016 but due to insertion of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the same has been converted into Cr. Appeal and also renumbered. It is further submitted that the appellant is innocent and there is no direct allegation agaisnt her and her husband, namely, Sanjit Mukherjee who is also named in the FIR has been granted regular bail, appellant also deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I,Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 620/2016, is hereby set aside. The above named appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellant, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 193/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 2271/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.1375 of 2016
Shankar Tiwari Ors. …… Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. S.K.Tiwari, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

04/Dated: 01/05/2017

Learned APP is directed to obtain the case diary of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 369/2016.

It appears that pursuant to notice issued to the respondent no.2, he appeared.

List this case after summer vacation.

Till then, interim order dated 16.12.2016 shall continue. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.797 of 2015
Mantu Ravidas …… Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Ors. …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

For the Appellant : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate

For the Respondent : A.P.P

17/Dated: 01/05/2017

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to comply the order dated 17.01.2017 by making necessary correction in the cause title of the memo of appeal as also in the I.A. No. 2278/2017.

List this case after summer vacation.

( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation