ma BA1/668/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List the matter on 26.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant Full Article
ma BA1/502/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Urgency application and Exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit in support of the urgency application and to exempt the applicant from depositing court fees, are filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown. The urgency application and the exemption application are not opposed by the State. The urgency application is allowed accordingly. The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 and Notification No. 89/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 18.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant. The learned Government Advocate requests two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Full Article
ma BA1/666/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List the matter on 27.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant Full Article
ma BA1/215/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4734 of 2020) is allowed. Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1160/2020) stands disposed of accordingly. Heard on the bail application. Having been implicated in the Case Crime/FIR No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, PS Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, the applicant is in jail. Learned Counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of doubt; applicant was not named in the FIR; two FIRs have been registered on the same cause of action and the appellant has been granted bail in the main case and there is no other pending case against the applicant except these two and he is in jail since 23.9.2019. Full Article
ma BAST/8/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. At the request of learned counsel for the State, list the matter on 14.05.2020. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State may file objections. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant Full Article
ma BA1/665/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List the matter on 21.05.2020. Exemption applicant stands disposed of. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.05.2020 Sukhbant Full Article
ma CRLA/226/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State. Exemption Application no. 1143 of 2020 is allowed. Heard. Admit the appeal. Summon the lower court record. Also heard on bail application no. 1114 of 2020. Applicant-appellant Ankush has been convicted under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without proper appraisal of evidence and has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Full Article
ma BA1/54/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 List after ten days. (N.S. Dhanik, J.) 06.5.2020 Prabedh Full Article
ma CRLA/225/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aamir Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate with Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State. This is an appeal against conviction, where the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). This is a belated appeal. The delay is of 47 days in filing the appeal, however, it is accompanied with a delay condonation application. The main reason assigned for the delay is that the appellant could not move a proper appeal within time due to present COVID-19 pandemic. Learned Government Advocate has very fairly stated that he has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Full Article
ma CRLA/217/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA, for the State. Urgency application (IA 4709/2020) is allowed. Let the affidavit of the pairiokar be filed and the court fee be deposited within three days of the opening of the lockdown. Exemption application (CRMA 1111/2020) stands disposed of accordingly. Heard on the bail application (CRMA 954/2020). Learned Counsel for the applicants would contend that the maximum sentence awarded to appellants is to undergo imprisonment for five years; appellant no. 2 is seriously ill and on account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, there is possibility of the appellants contracting the said disease; appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty and they are in jail since 5.3.2020. Full Article
ma BA1/2623/2019 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the complainant. Time extension application has been moved on behalf of the accused. From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, a short term bail for a period of three months commencing from the date of his actual release was granted to the accused by this Court in connection with Crime No.387 of 2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 4/5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Registered at P.S. Kotwal, District Dehradun. From the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2020, it is clear that three months time has been completed, but the accused did not file any time extension application before the expiry of three months, hence the accused is directed to surrender himself before the Magistrate on 11.05.2020 at 10:30AM. Full Article
ma BA1/654/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2020 Jitendra Full Article
ma BA1/653/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 The applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem, who are in custody, in connection with FIR No. 43 of 2020, under Sections3/5/11(1) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar have sought their release on bail. As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2020, 80 Kg. beef was recovered from the custody of the applicants. Applicants Mohd. Shfique and Nadeem were arrested at the spot. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR is delayed; there is no public witness and no FSL report. It is argued that applicants have no criminal history. Learned State Counsel also admits that there is no criminal history of the applicants. Full Article
ma BA1/590/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State. This matter is heard through Video Conferencing. The applicant Pawan, who is in custody, in connection with Case Crime No. 249 of 2019, under Section 380, 411, 34 of IPC, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. It is argued that co-accused Amit @ Romi has been granted bail, who has a similar role. Learned counsel for the State would admit that the co-accused, whose role is similar, has been granted bail. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Pawan, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Full Article
ma BA1/580/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 3 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Mukhteshwar, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985"). Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 19.02.2020 by S.O. Kuldeep Singh that while he was on daily routine duty along with other police personals in order to maintain law & order, an information was received that a person was coming with illicit Charas. The informant informed the Circle Officer of the Police. After that, the applicant came there. He was searched in the presence of the Circle Officer. On search, 750 grams Charas was recovered from his jacket. Full Article
ma BA1/546/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 The exemption application, to exempt the applicant from filing the affidavit, has been filed by the applicant during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with short term bail application. The exemption application is not opposed by the State. The exemption application is allowed with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the applicant. The regular bail application no. 546 of 2020 is pending before this Court. The applicant is in custody since 10.02.2020 in connection with the F.I.R. No. 1 of 2020, registered with the Police Station Baijnath, District Bageshwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C. Full Article
ma WPSS/495/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Full Article
ma Unknown vs Pranay Sati on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 The respondent no. 2 filed counter against the bail application through e-mail during COVID-19, pandemic lockdown with exemption application to exempt the respondent no. 2 from filing affidavit in support of the counter. The exemption application is accepted with the condition that directions of the Notification No. 86/UHC/Admin.B/2020 dated 11.04.2020 of this High Court will be followed by the respondent no. 2. The counter of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. The Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-applicant against the Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2020, passed by the Special Sessions Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2013 State Vs. Pranay Sati, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the offence punishable under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act, 1985"). Full Article
ma Neeraj ...Applicant (In Jail) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. Applicant Neeraj, who is in judicial custody, in Case Crime No. 107 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 506, 354(D) and 376 IPC and Section 3(a) read with 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ganganahar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 3. Prosecution story, briefly stated is that the applicant and the victim were in relationship, but when the victim learnt about the bad habits of the applicant, she severed her relationship. But, the applicant started following her, pressurised her and started threatening her that in case, she would not follow the commands of the applicant, he would make her photographs viral. On 16.01.2019, the applicant telephonically called the victim; threatened her. Under the tremendous threat extended by the applicant, when the victim reached at the designated place, the applicant took her in a hotel, there the victim met two more boys, who guarded the room. There in the hotel, the applicant raped the victim; took her photographs and threatened her of dire consequences, if she reveals this incident to anyone. The boys, who were in the hotel with the applicant, started molesting her. Even the applicant made the photographs 2 viral. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 08.03.2019. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. Full Article
ma BA1/14/2020 on 6 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 This first bail application has been filed for regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 270 of 2018, registered with the Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 504 & 307 of the I.P.C. On 04.05.2018, the informant lodged an F.I.R. alleging that about two years ago, he came in contact with the present applicant and co-accused Dinesh. They told him that they were in business of sale- purchase of Diamonds through their company "J.J. Company" at Delhi. On instigation, the informant gave money time to time to the accused persons. He gave total Rs. 60,60,000/- to the co-accused persons. They assured to return the money, however, even after two years, his money has not been returned. On 01.03.2018, the informant pressurized the accused persons to return his money, on which, the informant was being called on 03.05.2018 at Ulhera Bagh, where the applicant and co-accused persons abused and threatened him, the present applicant assaulted him through a Balkati and other co-accused persons assaulted with kicks and fists. Full Article
ma Reena W/O Shri Ramsingh B/C Kanjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan. For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.44/2020 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:14 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2343/2020] District Alwar, Police District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act. Full Article
ma Ramniwas@Ramu S/O Kajodi vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.307/2019 was registered at Police Station New (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:12 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2314/2020] Mandi, Hindauncity, District Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 382 of I.P.C. Full Article
ma Bahadur@Bahaduriya S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.242/2014 was registered at Police Station Thanagazi Alwar for offence under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is in custody for last one and a half years. Criminal antecedents pointed out against the petitioner are prior to the year 2014. Full Article
ma Ramkaran Fagediya S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Counsel for the complainant has not given his detail, hence, could not be connected. 3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 4. F.I.R. No.343/2019 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 323, 365, 201, 302/34 of I.P.C. (FIR has been lodged for offence under Section 302 of IPC.) 5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that eye witnesses have turned hostile. As per the FSL report, cause of death is inconclusive. There was only a bruise on the person of the prosecutrix. Full Article
ma Mukarram Hussain S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain (through jitsi meet) Mr. Parth Sharma (through jitsi meet) Mr. Rinesh Gupta (through jitsi meet) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP(CBN) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners through Jitsi Meet. Full Article
ma Saleem S/O Ishak vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the Court. 2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, through whatsapp video calling as well as learned Public Prosecutor, who is present in the Court. 3. Despite video whatsapp calling, Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant has failed to respond. 4. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.61/2018 Registered at Police Station Tapukda, District Alwar (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 376-D & 506 of IPC. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioners are the real brothers of the husband of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that one month prior to lodging of the present FIR, the (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2033/2020] prosecutrix also lodged the FIR No.0031/2018 on 15.01.2018 at Police Station Tapukara, District Alwar, in which, the petitioners were also made accused under Sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed only against the husband of the prosecutrix and not against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report against the accused-petitioners in the earlier FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the present FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report dated 03.12.2019, semen could not be detected on the clothes and vaginal swab of the victim. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since February, 2018. Full Article
ma Sudeep Gupta S/O Shri Ram Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. For Complainant : Mr. Brahm Singh Gurjar. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 3. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 4. F.I.R. No.355/2019 was registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 436, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. Full Article
ma Ahmad S/O Mauj Khan B/C Mev vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. Petitioners has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.139/2019 was registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 3, 4 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner is in custody since September, 2019. There was neither any marks on the body of the petitioner, nor any material things are (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:47:01 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1474/2020] recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners. Conclusion of trial will take time. Full Article
ma Mohammad Salman S/O Liyakat Ali ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. Bundu Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani R/o Meer Colony Kekri Road Near Idhgah Malpura Thana Dist. Tonk At Present Tenant House No 24 Chmnawadi Sanjay Nagar Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) 2. Mohammad Kalim S/o Shri Mohammad Aladdin Khan R/o Bada Mohalla Lalsot Dist. Full Article
ma Asharam Swami S/O Shri Begdas ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For State : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.1055/2019 was registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 343, 366, 376 of I.P.C. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay of lodging in FIR. As per the medical report, prosecutrix is aged 20 years. There are no marks of injury on her person and private parts. Full Article
ma Ajay@Dinesh S/O Shri Kalu @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, he is behind the bars since 30.09.2018, charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.12.2018, co-accused Kana @ Vijay has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court on 21.11.2019, case of present accused petitioner is not different from that of co- accused Kana. Till date evidence of only nine witnesses have been (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-18079/2019] recorded while prosecution has listed thirty witnesses, hence completion of trial will take time. It has also been submitted that only one eye witness, PW.5, Ajay has been named in the case by the prosecution, whose statement has been recorded and his evidence is not reliable against the present accused petitioner. Full Article
ma Dharamraj S/O Ramphool vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 489/2020 Ramdayal@r.d. S/o Ramkaran ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Full Article
ma Mohan Singh S/O Shri Shriram B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 663/2019 registered with Police Station Nadbai (Bharatpur), for the offence/s punishable under Section/s 377, 429 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. It has been submitted that material prosecution witnesses in this case have turned hostile during trial, copies of statements of those witnesses have been filed and it has been contended that the main witnesses PW.1 Jadveer, PW.4 Satish and other material witnesses have turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution version, hence the accused petitioner may be granted bail. Full Article
ma Anand Singh S/O Shri Mahipal Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. for the complainant. (on Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant. This Court finds that D.B. Criminal Appeal is pending against the judgment dated 19.12.2019. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant is required to be heard by the appropriate Bench. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is an order dated 09.04.2018 issued by the Registrar General whereby it has been directed that if an appeal is pending before the Division Bench and the accused who has awarded lesser sentence, then the appeal before the Single Bench is required to be tagged with the D.B. Criminal Appeal and the same is required to be listed before the Division Bench. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:27 PM) Full Article
ma Dinesh Srivastava S/O Shri Jay ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/05/2020 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court. 2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.300/2019 was registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur Metropolitan for offence under Sections 323, 341, 504, 427, 302, 34 of I.P.C. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of seven days in lodging of FIR. Co-accused has been enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Full Article
ma Jagdish Patidar S/O Sh. Bherulal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 88/2019 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present accused-petitioner. The alleged recovery has been made from other co-accused persons. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner except the information of co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed on 17.01.2020. Trial of the case will (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:48 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15939/2019] consume time. The petitioner is behind Bars since 31.10.2019. Full Article
ma Sunil Singh S/O Rakesh Singh @ Gudu ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/05/2020 This Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application has been filed by the applicant-appellant alongwith the criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant appellant was on bail during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been convicted under Section 363 IPC with simple imprisonment of 4 years. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted on other charges levelled against him under Sections 366, 376 (2) (i) 2(n) IPC & Section 5 (L), 6 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellant (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:32 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLASOSA-335/2020] submitted that the appellant was arrested on 27.03.2019 and as such appellant has remained behind the bars for more than 13 months. Full Article
ma Insaf S/O Ishaq Mohammed B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.98/2019 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody since 02.05.2019. Learned counsel submitted that police after investigation has filed challan. Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the appellants is in respect of using fire arm but (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:25 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2822/2019] the medical report which has been prepared shows that the injury suffered by the injured was simple in nature and caused by the blunt weapon. Full Article
ma Satyavan S/O Lakkhiram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 3. F.I.R. No.26/2019-20 was registered at Police Station Excise Police Jhunjhunu (North) for offence under Sections 14/54, 19/54, 54-A, 14/57 of Rajasthan Excise Act. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is driver of the vehicle. He was not aware that there is no valid permit of transportation of the liquor. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of like nature. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 6. I have considered the contentions. (Downloaded on 08/05/2020 at 08:46:54 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-17684/2019] Full Article
ma Dharmraj S/O Balkishan vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 This Court further finds that on 17th April, 2020, this Court had also made efforts to contact to the lawyer but he did not respond. Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option except to adjourn this case. This Court also finds that if learned counsel has moved an application for listing of the bail application, he is expected to be available on either mode of communication with him. Full Article
ma Kamrun Nessa vs Mr. Khalil Ahmed & Ors on 18 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 A five-storied building could not have been constructed in an unauthorised manner within a couple of days. It must have taken months for the same to be constructed. The Municipal authorities, as also the local police station, cannot feign ignorance of the building having coming up in their presence upto the fifth floor in an unauthorised manner. In such circumstances, the said Mr. Joysurja Mukherjee, as we are now told is posted as Officer-in-Charge, Tiljala Police Station, should also be present in Court on 20th March, 2020 to assist this Court and explain how could such an unauthorised structure came up upto the fifth floor. (ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.] Full Article
ma Sanjay Jhunjhunwala vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Full Article
ma Sefali Singh & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ... on 18 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2 She files affidavit of service to show copy of the application was served on Chief Law Officer, Legal Cell, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It be kept with records. The writ petition has been listed along with the application. Sum and substance of applicant's submission is that she fears being dispossessed. In that context Court has perused letter dated 14th June, 2018, written on behalf of petitioners and communication dated 18th July, 2018, impugned in the writ petition, appearing respectively at pages 67 and 71. It appears, by impugned communication, made in reference to said letter dated 14th June, 2018, assessee number of premises occupied by, inter alia, applicant, has been automatically cancelled on amalgamation of premises. Full Article
ma Imraj Ali Molla vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although only one of the companies was alleged to have committed default, the DIN of the petitioners was deactivated in respect of the other companies, in which they were directors, as well, which was de hors the law. 4. Moreover, even in respect of the defaulting company, the DIN of the petitioners could not be deactivated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the allegations made against them in respect of each company. 5. The disqualification of the company‐in‐question took place in the year 2014, that is, prior to the 2018 Amendment of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act") and as such, the provisions of the 2018 Amendment would not be applicable thereto. Full Article
ma Primarc Tirumala Projects Llp vs Banke Behari Realcon Pvt Ltd And ... on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Appearance: Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv. ...for the petitioner. The Court : At the instance of the petitioner the matter is appearing today under the heading "To Be Mentioned" for correction of a typographical error crept in the order dated March 11, 2020. By the said order this Court disposed of the application, AP No.49 of 2020. Let the amount of money mentioned in the third line at the fourth page of the said order dated March 11, 2020 be corrected as Rs.9.8 crore in place and stead of Rs.9.2 crore. Full Article
ma Netai Chandra Barik vs Saralabala Barick & Ors on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Appearance : Smt. Jayabati Barick, in person The Court :- Perused the report filed by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court dated 18th March, 2020. It appears from the said report to which a report of the Department of Ophthalmology, IPGME&R-SSKM Hospital, filed in terms of the order dated 12th February, 2020 passed by this Court is enclosed that Nader Chand Barik is having hundred per cent blindness as per Government of India Norms. It further appears from the Registrar's report that save and except the deposition, all cause papers in the TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 are available. The report further reveals that the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department has prayed for passing necessary direction upon various Record 2 Section of the Original Side i.e. Current Record Department, Old Record Department, New building Record (NBR) Department and Central Record Room at Khidderpore to make extensive searches to trace out the original deposition in the aforesaid suit. In my opinion, though specific direction is not required on each of the record sections for searching the record in the said departments as prayed for by the Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department as indicated in the said report but by way of abundant precaution I pass direction upon the Registrar, Original Side as also Assistant Registrar, Testamentary Department to look for the deposition in the two suits being TS 17 of 2017 and TS 1 of 2012 in all possible places where records are either temporarily or permanently stored and/or kept in this Court premises or outside. Full Article
ma Ashok Panda vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Appearance: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person The Court: Mr. Subhendu Parui appears in person. None appears for the State. The matter is fixed for hearing on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. The petitioner, who appears in person, is requested to serve a copy of this order to the Government Pleader. Ld. Government Pleader is requested to appear in this matter on 26th March, 2020 at 10.30am. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) R.Bhar Full Article
ma Laxmi Pat Surana vs Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. & Ors on 20 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Appearance: Mr. Laxmi Pat Surana, ...petitioner in person The Court: The petitioner is present in Court. He requests for a date on which the matter may be taken up. List this matter on 1st April, 2020. (MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) Sbghosh Full Article
ma Subhra Mukhopadhyay And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 In such view of the matter, a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners as to the fixation of dates and time for the general election being mala fide on the part of the respondent no. 4 authorities. The balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of granting such injunction, since if the election is held and a newly elected body assumes power, the writ petition would be infructuous; on the other hand, in the event the writ petition fails, another date can be fixed for such election, if necessary upon imposition of compensatory costs being awarded against the petitioners. Although there is a notification of this Court requesting Judges not to take up matters for hearing in the absence of all the parties, since sufficient notice 3 has been given to the respondents and in view of the extreme urgency involved in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing. Full Article
ma Mahendra Investment Advisors ... vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited on 24 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... for the respondent. The applicant is the respondent in an appeal against a money decree. The applicant apprehends that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant may dispose of its assets or alienate the same. Since the operation of the decree has not been stayed, it is open to the respondent to levy execution and seek the necessary protection. The injunction sought would not fall within the scope of this appeal. (SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) SG Full Article