vs Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dinara, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, 63 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Investigation is over in matter and charge sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 10.03.2020. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. He further submits that looking to the pandemic situation of COVID- 2 Full Article
vs Mukesh Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have filed this first application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicants have been arrested by Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.83/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act. It is alleged by the counsel for the applicants that 90 litres of liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicants. They are in custody since 2.4.2020. It is further submitted that there is no criminal history against the present applicants. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13180/2020 (Mukesh Rai & Ors. vs. State of M.P.) PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under : Full Article
vs Ramcharan Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 16/03/2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sheopur, whereby applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 452 and 325, 323/34 of IPC undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months and applicant No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 452 and 325/34, 323 of IPC to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1583-2020 (RAMCHARAN GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) undergo 6 months, 6 months and 1 months alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- each respectively with default stipulation. Full Article
vs Lalaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal appeal under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 13/03/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby applicant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC to undergo six months and three months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, 00/- respectively with default stipulation. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R-1601-2020 (LALARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Also heard on I.A. No.2869/2020, an application under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the said liberty of bail. Hearing of this revision will take sometime, and therefore, the suspension of the jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail by way of suspension of sentence. Full Article
vs Bablu @ Balveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situations due to the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus COVID-19 and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application is being heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented through their respective counsels through VC and therefore, norms of social distancing/physical distancing were followed in letter and spirit. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Gwalior whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail has been rejected. Appellant is in custody since 7.3.2020 in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2020 registered at Police Station Hastinapur district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act. Full Article
vs Ramkumar Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 3 and recorded that outgoing in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31). Full Article
vs Gopal Prasad Shivhare vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 The petition is being filed by the petitioner and challenge is being made to the order dated 04.03.2020, whereby the petitioner is directed to retire on completion of 62 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Physical Instructor and is equivalent to Teacher as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma, in W.A.No.613/2016. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Clause F of Regulation 8 of Ministry of Human Resources and Development Department as under :- "(f) Age of Superannuation :- (i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teacher in Central Education Institution has already 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.7385/2020 (Gopal Prasad Shivhare Vs. Union of India & Others) been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the Department of Higher Education letter No. F.No.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.03.2007, for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department of Higher Education D.O. Letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated 30-03-2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of vice- Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities). Full Article
vs Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. The facts of the case of prosecution, in short, is that the applicant-Shobharam, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Secretary of Village Panchayat, Jainabad and applicant-Suresh was Panch of Village Panchayat, Jainabad. 200 quintal wheat and 100 quintal rice was allotted to Village Panchayat, Jainabad for distributing among labour workers engaged under Village Employment Scheme. Rice was entrusted to the applicants to distribute the same, however, instead of distributing the rice to the labour worker, both applicants conspired with other co-accused and tried to sell out that wheat and rice to one Dilip Jain. Concerned authority after receiving the information, seized the truck and registered FIR for the offence under Section 406, 409, 420 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court i.e. the Court of JMFC, Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.592/2005 framed charges against the 3 applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 414 read with Section 511 of IPC. Full Article
vs Nand Kishor Nayak vs M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For respondents : Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocates in their respective petitions. Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 26.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) This batch of petitions is involving the similar question and issue, therefore, are being decided concomitantly. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.20394/2012 are being taken-up. -6- W.P. No. 20394/2012 & connected petitions Full Article
vs T.P.G. Pillay vs Mohammad Jamir Khan on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For Respondent No.2/State: Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Law laid down Suit for specific performance of contract- readiness and willingness for a seeking decree of performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to produce strong documentary evidence relating to his financial condition- only oral evidence in respect of financial condition to establish readiness and willingness is not sufficient- The Court cannot assume or presume the financial status of the plaintiff only on the basis of oral evidence- The suit of specific performance of contract cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff unless readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is proved by the plaintiff. Full Article
vs Santosh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 04.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, since pleadings are complete, the matter is heard finally. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming that he was working as 2 W. P. No. 1763/2020 Chairman/President of Municipal Council, Khandwa, by virtue of his election and certificate issued by the Returning Officer on 04.12.2014. The tenure of the President in the Municipal Council is over and the respondents/State is inclined to appoint an Administrator who is a Government Officer. Full Article
vs Piyush Jaiswal vs Barkatullah University on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For Respondent/University: Shri Samresh Katare, Advocate. Law laid down Significant Para Nos. Reserved on : 12.02.2020 Delivered on : 08.05.2020 (O R D E R) Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, they are heard finally. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P. No.1157/2019 are being taken- 2 W. P. No. 1157/ 2019 & W. P. No. 1011/2019 up. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- Full Article
vs Smt. Meena Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 8 W. P. No. 6095/2020 12. The Commissioner, vide order dated 28.02.2020, has finally decided the appeal and set-aside the order of the Collector holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the ten marks of BPL because admittedly, the name of her husband was not there in the BPL list before the date of issuance of the advertisement, but it was added only on the last date of submitting the applications i.e. 20.07.2015, whereas the advertisement was issued on 07.07.2015. The Commissioner, therefore, observed that if the ten marks of BPL card are deleted from the total marks awarded to the petitioner, then her total marks adds up-to 61, whereas respondent No.5 secured 64.50 marks and as such, she secured first position in the list and the Commissioner directed the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Sidhi, to issue order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5 cancelling the appointment order of the present petitioner. Full Article
vs Santosh Kumar Rathor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 and recorded that Ravangi(outgoing) in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31). Full Article
vs Neelesh Bamoriya @ Sandeep ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that on 28/11/2018 father of the Prosecutrix (PW2) lodged a missing report bearing No.54/2018 (Ex.P/4) at Police Station Industrial Area, Satlapur to the effect that he is residing in a rental house of Jumman, opposite to Tapti School, Satlapur having six daughters, elder one prosecutrix aged about 12 years 10 months is studying in Class-8 th in Megha Vidya Mandir, not found in the house since morning also alleged some jewallary, ATM and money are missing. Placed a doubt on Appellant Neelesh Ahirwar who residing in the same building . 3 3. On the basis of said missing report, case of missing person (Ex.P/5) and first information report (Ex.P/6) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC registered against suspicious Neelesh Ahirwar at Crime No.325/2018. The matter was taken into investigation. After recovering Prosecutrix she was sent for medical examination, report Ex.P/13 had been obtained. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix were recorded and on her statement, accused were arrested. On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC were added in the case against the accused/appellant and other co accused Bablu. Medical examination report of the appellant is Ex.P/11. Forensic Science Laboratory, Sager report Ex.P/22 received in this regard. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the competent Court against the appellant along with co-accused Bablu Ahirwar. Full Article
vs Samreen Moinuddin Farookhi vs Moinuddin Farookhi on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant got married with respondent No.1 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Respondent No.2 is father-in- law, applicant No.3 is mother-in-law , applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of the applicant. The applicant has been living in matrimonial hose along with all the respondents since marriage. Respondent No.1- husband of the applicant and respondent No.3-mother-in-law of the applicant are having joint title and possession of the questioned house (matrimonial house) where the applicant is living. While she was living in matrimonial house, she gave birth to a girl child, but, all the respondents wanted a male child, therefore, harassed her in so many occasions, beat her and did not allow her to go outside and when she got chance to go outside, she immediately filed a report against the respondents and 3 also filed an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayed for maintenance and restriction order not to interfere in the possession of the applicant in her matrimonial house. The applicant also filed an application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for interim order. Full Article
vs Md. Abbas vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 - Gorgama, P.S.- Salkhua, District - Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Full Article
vs Pitambar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Rizwanul Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ariyari PS Case No. 86 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 instituted under Sections 302, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Article
vs Manish Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPL PP For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared. Full Article
vs Avinav Apurwa @ Bam Singh @ Baban ... vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni (Refinery) PS Case No. 521 of 2018 dated 06.11.2018 instituted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Full Article
vs Gaurav Kumar @ Raja Bhardwaj vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N K Agrawal, Sr. Advocates Mr. Vikramaditya and Mr. Amnesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Full Article
vs Mukhtar Mian vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kundwa Chainpur PS Case No. 174 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 instituted under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)/41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Full Article
vs Lalu Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihariganj PS Case No. 294 of 2019 dated 01.09.2019 instituted under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act. Full Article
vs Sonu Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Naushad Uzzoha with Mr. Shafiur Rahman, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gopalganj Excise Case No. 374 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 3. It is alleged that from the house of the petitioner 6.480 litres of wine was recovered. Full Article
vs Santosh Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 70 of 2019 arising out of Maner PS Case No. 179 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 8/12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 54 'D' of the I T Act. Full Article
vs Raju Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No 7, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Nautan PS Case No. 184 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 instituted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is of kidnapping the brother of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not named in the FIR and only on suspicion has been arrested. It was submitted that because the petitioner was apprehended in Nautan PS Case No. 185 of 2019, he has been also made accused in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there has been no recovery from the petitioner. Full Article
vs Sarwar Hussain @ Sarwar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raushanganj PS Case No. 129 of 2019 dated 10.07.2019 instituted under Sections 302/328 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Article
vs Ajad Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Imadpur PS Case No. 55 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 instituted under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Full Article
vs Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khutauna PS Case No. 116 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019 instituted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 272, 273 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a0 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 3. The allegation against the petitioner and three others is that from the Bolero vehicle he was driving, 405 litres of Nepali countrymade wine was recovered. Full Article
vs Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Sahni @ Ajit Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kankarbagh PS Case No. 233 of 2019 dated 27.02.2019 instituted under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Article
vs Anwari Khatoon @ Tunni @ Nikki vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Late Navi Hasan @ Navi Hasan Miya 2. Jafrani Khatoon @ Zafrin Khatoon, female, aged about 24 years, W/o Md. Ezaj Kadri Both resident of Nardiganj Bazar, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. Full Article
vs Katari Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kalyanpur PS Case No. 80 of 2019 dated 27.04.2019 instituted under Sections 272 and 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Full Article
vs Ram Kishore Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 6. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : Full Article
vs Aman Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Adv. Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Adv. Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG -IV Mr.Sri Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA) Date : 20 -04 -2020 Judicial system in India has to face two adage one is justice delayed is justice denied and another is justice hurried is justice buried. However, in spite of above two adage, one thing remains i.e. to provide timely justice, which is an essence of rule of law and appreciating the same, clause 40 of Magna Carta provided "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice." Speedy justice was also mandate and there are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1827 of 2017 dt.20-04-2020 2/56 catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, which holds it to be a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Full Article
vs Pintu Poddar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Mon, 04 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria 2. Guddu Poddar Son of Arjun Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.- Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria 3. Rajkishore Poddar Son of Gujo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.- Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria 4. Bhola Poddar Son of Mulo Poddar Resident of Village - Jalkaura, P.S.- Khagaria (Gangaur), Dist.- Khagaria ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : Full Article
vs Dr. Keshav vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 2. Dr. Amrita Rashmi D/o Dr. Ashok Kumar R/o House No. A1661, Devi Sthan Road, Mahuabagh, ( Near Jagdeo Path), Dhanaut, Sahay Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board IAS Association Building, Patna through the Chairman. 5. The Controller of Examinations Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna. Full Article
vs Babulal vs State Of Chhattisgarh 7 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with crime No.16/2020 registered at Police Station Mohgaona, distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 6.5 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in detention since 13.4.2020 He further submits that applicants 2 have no criminal background and have been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicants may be released on bail. Full Article
vs Goukaran @ Dilharan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. Heard on IA No.01/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 456, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and RI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. Against the order of the trial Court the applicant has preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara. The appellate Court vide its order dated 03.3.2020 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Full Article
vs Raju Tande vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.189/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020 He further submits that applicant has no criminal background and has been falsely implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 2 Full Article
vs Salik Ram Vishwakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 5 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.32/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 19.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2 Full Article
vs Pushpendra Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 4 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.38/2020 registered at Police Station Sariya, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 40 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 22.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2 Full Article
vs Dhaneshwar Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 3 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.85/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 12 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 26.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2 Full Article
vs Gobind Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 ... on 7 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Thu, 07 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 07.5.2020 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with crime No.69/2020 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 13 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in detention since 17.4.2020. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 2 Full Article
vs Shiv Mohan Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 24 th of June, 2009 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ ST Act, 1989), Korea (C.G.), in Special Case No. 02/2006 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 450 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations. 2. In the present case, prosecutrix is (PW-1). As per version of the prosecution on 7th of May, 2005 at about 5.00 pm in the evening while the prosecutrix was alone in the house. The appellant/accused entered in the house of the prosecutrix and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter run away. Matter was reported, investigated the appellant was charge-sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. 2 Full Article
vs Mahipal Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur/ Special Judge under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012'), in Special Session Trial No.02/2017 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Act 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine 2 of Rs.1000/- and RI for 07 years and to pay fine of 1000/- respectively with default stipulation. 2. As per the version of the prosecution, the date of incident is 16.01.2017. Prosecutrix is PW-6 who is aged about 04 years. Said prosecutrix complained of pain to her mother on which her mother examined her private parts and found redness and swelling. On enquiry the prosecutrix intimated her mother that the appellant after putting soap inserted his finger in her private part. The matter was reported and investigated. The appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. Full Article
vs Lokesh Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 21.12.2000 passed by the court of Special Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No. 05/1997, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations. Full Article
vs Raj Kumar Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26th June, 2001 passed by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act, 1985") Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 55/2000 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for charge under Section 20(B)(2)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 2. In the present case, as per version of prosecution on 12 th of October, 2000 at about 11.00 am. Sub inspector Bhupendra Singh Mourya of Police Station Nagarnar, received secret information to the effect that one person having one slight blueish coloured suit case and one green coloured bag, is keeping Ganja on barrier of Dhanpunji. The S.I. Bhupendra Singh recorded the same in the roznamcha sanha and also 2 prepared panchnama(Ex.P.2) and sent the same to the senior officer and after that he took the witnesses and police staff and went to Dhanpunji barrier. Said police officer had given a notice to the appellant as per Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 of his right of being searched by some gazetted offier, any magistrate or by him, on which the accused opted to search by this police officer(Sub Inspector). After search he was found in possession contraband article Ganja, which was seized and matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. Full Article
vs Tilakram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 10 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 25 th of February, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Special Case No.12/2015 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for charge under Sections 363, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 200/-, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations. Full Article
vs Abdul Khan @ Monu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (CG) in Special Session Trial No.02/2016 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act 2012') and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.8000/- and RI for 2 02 years and to pay fine of 2000/- respectively with default stipulation. 2. In the present case prosecutrix is PW-5. As per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is minor and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Again the appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her parents to kill. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above. Full Article
vs Sangeeta Das @ Savita Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 ... on 8 May, 2020 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act 1985'), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 240/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations. 2 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 12.01.2014, Police Officer- Shankar Chandrakar, In-charge of Government Railway Police, Raipur received information that two persons carrying contraband article ganja are traveling in train Ahmedabad Express. On the basis of said information, the Police Officer with other staff reached to the spot and recovered ganja to the tune of 38 Kg. from the appellant. After complying with all the legal formalities, the matter was investigated, appellant was charge- sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned above. Full Article