The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

Sh. Anoop Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and owner.

Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sunil Verma (married aged 25 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 02.09.2018. The petitioners also prayed for compensation MACP No. 754/18; FIR No. 206/18 DOD:12.11.2024 for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

12.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014.

1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gave necessary instructions to the CriAppeal-704-2005+ complainant and the shadow pancha. On their instructions, both, complainant and shadow pancha, visited court. There, accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification and when informant was paying the same, it was directed to be paid to accused no.2, after which pre- determined signal was relayed by informant, leading to further trap and apprehension of accused persons. Thereafter, PW6 lodged report, carried out investigation, chargesheeted both accused, who were made to face trial before learned Special Judge vide above referred Special Case No. 4 of 2003 and on appreciating prosecution evidence as well as defence witnesses, learned trial Judge, by impugned order dated 29.09.2005, held both accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act, respectively. Said judgment is now subject matter of the appeals before this Court.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

1. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'), by the original claimant seeking to quash and set aside the arbitral award dated 4th February 2022, passed by the sole arbitrator. FACTS

2. On 5th May 2016, a tender was published by the Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical), Central Railway, Mumbai (for short 'Railways') towards the work of Pest and Rodent Control, in railway Diksha Rane 24. ARBP 43-23-FINAL.doc passenger coaches maintained at CSTM, WB, MZN, DRT and LDT, Coaching Depots and Rodent Control in Coaching Depots yard and premises. The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 7 th June 2016, was declared as the successful bidder. Accordingly, the contract work of the said tender was awarded to the petitioner, for an amount of Rs.1,96,32,255/-. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 30th November 2016 to 29th November 2019.

08.11.2024

1. This writ petition came out for its maiden hearing on 28th October, 2024, when this Court came across with a recital made in the writ petition that all the petitioners have already ventured with writ petitions before this Court and there are interim directions operating in those pending writ petitions in violation whereof order impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed.

2. Accordingly, this Court came to direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to place on record copies of the writ petitions related to the writ petitioners herein which are said to be pending before this Court.

3. In order to get out of the rigor of the order dated 28th October, 2024, the petitioners are stated to have even ventured in letters patent appeal which came to be dismissed as withdrawn and this is how today the learned counsel for the petitioners is back to square one with the direction still operating for the petitioners to produce all the writ petitions related to them and pending before this Court.

Through: -

Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 Vide Judgment dated 07.10.2022, respondent No. 3- Director General Doordarshan Copernicus Marg, New Delhi was directed as under:-

"Be that as it may, with the consensus of the parties, respondent No. 3- Director General Doordarshan Copernicus Marg, New Delhi is directed to consider the claim of petitioners with respect to payment of fee, if any, due to every petitioner in terms of rules applicable and pass speaking order within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served upon him."

08.11.2024 None appears for the respondent despite service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, in the complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for commission of offences under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. Perusal of the impugned order ex facie tends to show that the trial court has passed the impugned order in a casual and cursory manner, overlooking the mandate of the Apex court laid down in case titled as "Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein at para 28 following has been laid down:

Through: -

Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 212-JKPCC of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, by virtue of which the stone crusher unit of the petitioner has been directed to be closed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the requisite documents from the revenue department as per Rule 10 of S.O. 60 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 without valid consent from the J&K Pollution Control Committee and that the unit of the petitioner is being run in violation of Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has also been directed to de-register the stone crusher of the petitioner.

The judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadagiri in NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 Special Case No.45/2015 is assailed in this appeal by the accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

3. Charges were framed against the accused/ appellant for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(A)(1), 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant/PW-1 was proceeding towards the canal in Nagaral village to wash the clothes, the accused held her hands, abused her as 'le holeya sule' and called her to sleep with him and when she resisted, he dragged her by holding her tuft, assaulted on her back with his hands and thereby committed the charged offences.

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2024 Judgment on : 12.11.2024 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the grant of probate of the Will of one Late Shanti Shaw. The appellant is the son of the testatrix whereas, by virtue of the Will, the testatrix bequeathed her properties to her daughter Smt. Sabitri Shaw (the respondent's wife).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inordinate delay in filing the probate application is itself to be construed as a suspicious circumstance vitiating the application. It is contended that the Will was purportedly executed on January 6, 1997, and the testatrix died on July 16, 1997. A previous probate application was filed on January 6, 1999 but the same was dismissed on April 17, 2002 due to non-

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013.

Darogi Yadav @ Bhupati, aged about 40 years, S/o. Shri Bodhan Yadav, R/o. Vill.- Dudhania Tola, P.O.- Khaira Block, P.S.- Cherko Pathar, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Moola Satyanarayan Reddy, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rama Reddy, r/o House No.4-150/1, Janambhumi Nagar, Mancherial, PO, PS & District- Mancheril, Telengana-504208 ... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Superintendent of Police, Chief Investigating Officer, NIA ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

-------

For the Appellant : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. PP Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/325/354-B/379/452/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and also snatched the gold chain from her neck worth Rs.95,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the neighbours and relatives of the informant. They have been implicated in this case by the informant due to previous enmity. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 17 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Chandan Singh, aged about 24 years, S/o. Kuldeep Singh, R/o. Toiladungary, P.O. & P.S.- Golmuri, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 03/11.11.2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 231/2024 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 13/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 468/2024, for the offences registered under Sections 341/323/325/307/302/504/506/120(B)/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Sahay, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega.

... ... Petitioner

-Versus -

The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

------

02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties.

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Roy For the State: Mr. S. P. Jha, A.P.P ----- 03/11.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 341/323/307/504/506/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He along with his wife has been roped in this case by the informant due to land dispute. Even if the contents of the written report are taken to be true, the informant sustained lacerated injury on his left eyebrow and there was bleeding from his left nostril. He was advised to undergo X-Ray of skull and CTC of head, however, he did not undergo the said scanning. The injuries sustained by the informant have been found simple in nature. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the present anticipatory bail application. The petitioner, however, undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

1. Md. Sonu Ansari @ Javed Akhtar, S/o Hasib Ansari.

2. Akramul Ansari, S/o Enush Ansari.

Both residents of Neori, P.O. Neori Vikash, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP

-----

Soleman Sheikh, S/o Shojal Shekh @ Sojal Shekh, R/o village-Shiv Mandir Kalikapur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur (T), District-

Pakur. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party. -----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ----- Order No.02 Date: 11.11.2024

1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.81 of 2024 registered under Sections 379/420/467/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Rules 7/9/13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017.

For the petitioner : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P

-----

02/11.11.2024 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/353/188/307/427/ 269/270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of Jharkhand Epidemic Disease (Covid-19) Act, 2020 and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the accused persons including the petitioner by forming unlawful assembly used criminal force against public servants deterring them from discharging their official duties. They also pelted stones on the government servants being part of 'Mangala' procession. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not seen as the member of 'Mangala' procession in the CCTV footage. Despite that he has been implicated in this case with malafide motive only due to the reason that he was actively involved in 'Ramnavmi' puja. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Rajesh Keshri and Rakesh Keshri have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 passed in A.B.A No. 5644 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Faziran Khatoon wife of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

2. Gulam Hussain, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

3. Gulam Ali, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

4. Hassain Raza @ Hasnain Raja, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Neha Kumari daughter of Umesh Ravani, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro .... ... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. Order No. 05 Dated: 11.11.2024 The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

1. Mithlesh Mandal @ Mithlesh Kumar Mandal, S/o of Ganpat Mandal

2. Jitendra Mandal, S/o Bajo Mandal

3. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Dhalo Mandal All residents of Panchayat Dasdih, Block Gandey, Village Margodh, P.S. Gandey, District Giridih.

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

-----

03/12.11.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted the informant's husband due to which his left leg got fractured. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him. The dispute between the parties arose due to a drainage. Even if the content of the written report is taken to be true, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no intention to kill the informant's husband as admittedly, he sustained fracture injury on his leg. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the present application. They also undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P

-----

04/12.11.2024 The petitioner is apprehending her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376/313/323/341/498-A/420/ 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint leading to lodging of the present F.I.R. It has been alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused Shivnandan Sahu @ Shivandan Sahu (father- in-law) and Pramila Devi (mother-in-law) was involved in getting pregnancy of the informant terminated and that the main accused Sikandar Sahu performed another marriage with her. In fact, co- accused Sikandar Sahu has not performed any marriage with the petitioner. She is merely a co-villager and she has been implicated in this case by the informant due to personal grudge. Moreover, co- accused Shivnandan Sahu @ Shivandan Sahu, Pramila Devi and Surendra Sahu @ Sulendra Sahu have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2024 passed in A.B.A No. 3816/2024. The petitioner also undertakes to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, she may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

Reserved on 27.08.2024 Pronounced on 12.11.2024

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) but modified the sentences awarded to the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence with default sentences. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.559 of 2003 / Trial No.15 of 2005 (arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.52 of 2003 dated 05.07.2003), the petitioner along with Banamali Singh Choudhary and Ramlal Singh were convicted for offence under Sections 353, 504/34 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC for each offence and had directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner and co- accused persons from the charge under Section 448 of IPC. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

C.A.V. on 05.09.2024 Pronounced on 12.11.2024 These criminal revisions have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and the order of sentence dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in T.R. No.915 of 2018, arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.618 of 2015.

2. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and has sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for one month. The period of custody undergone by the petitioners was directed to be set off against the period of sentence awarded to them.

C.A.V. on 05.09.2024 Pronounced on 12.11.2024 These criminal revisions have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and the order of sentence dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in T.R. No.915 of 2018, arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.618 of 2015.

2. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and has sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for one month. The period of custody undergone by the petitioners was directed to be set off against the period of sentence awarded to them.

Amateur investors took the stock market by storm a year ago, buying up shares of meme stocks like GameStop and AMC Entertainment. Many remember it as a revolution against Wall Street, but in the end, they largely just lined the pockets of major financial firms. WSJ’s Dion Rabouin explains. Illustration: Sebastian Vega

Women are less likely to delegate than men and that might hurt their careers. WSJ's Michelle Ma explains why women have a harder time passing off work to others.

Along with the large airplane hangar, amenities include two fireplaces, a deck, a patio with a hot tub, a viewing tower, and a detached shop for additional toys and gear.

President Biden on Tuesday spoke in Atlanta to support changing Senate filibuster rules as he sought passage of federal voting laws that have been repeatedly blocked by Republicans. Photo: Patrick Semansky/Associated Press

DY Chandrachud: শেষ যে কেসটি সুপ্রিম কোর্টে সম্পূর্ণ হল সেটি সাংবাদিক মনোজ তীব্রেওয়াল আকাশের। তাঁর একটি পূর্বপুরুষের বাড়ি ছিল। যেটি ২০১৯ সালে কোনরকমের প্রপার নোটিশ ছাড়ায় ভেঙে গুঁড়িয়ে দেওয়া হয়।