as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

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.

The first nor’easter of the season barreled across the east coast, bringing heavy rain and high winds. Cars were stuck on flooded roads in Massachusetts as some homes in New Jersey lost power on Tuesday. Photo: Peter Pereira/Associated Press

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced his plan to retire after serving more than two decades on the court. The departure gives President Biden the opportunity to deliver on his promise to nominate the court’s first Black woman. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

A growing number of studies indicate Omicron is more resistant to current vaccines than previous Covid variants, though boosters seem to help. WSJ’s Daniela Hernandez gets an exclusive look inside a lab testing how antibodies interact with Omicron. Photo illustration: Tom Grillo

North Korea released images of earth from space, which it claims were captured by a camera attached to the Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile it launched Sunday. The weapon tested appears to be one of the country’s most powerful in years. Photo: KCNA/KNS/AFP

From a more powerful intercontinental ballistic missile to hypersonic ones, North Korea has been displaying new weapons alongside its nuclear bombs and submarines. WSJ takes a look at the regime’s growing arsenal to see what message it sends to the world. Composite: Diana Chan

Dish has made a stunning bid to buy Sprint for a cash-and -stock deal valuing Dish at $25.5 billion. Last year Softbank agreed to buy Sprint, also for a package of cash and stock. Dish claims its offer is worth 13% more.

WSJ higher-education reporter Melissa Korn breaks down the select groups of borrowers who are currently eligible for student debt relief and what borrowers can expect next year. Photo: Getty Images

Dear readers, The Daily Fix will no longer be updated as of July 2017. Visit our sports section for the latest coverage and follow us on Twitter for news and analysis of the sports world. Additionally, you can download the WSJ app for iOS or Android to follow your favorite reporters and columnists and receive notifications when they publish new […]

Here’s what economists had to say about the July jobs report.

A batch of economic data in the coming week will shed light on the economy's strength as it entered the third quarter.

Five things to know about China's move to devalue its currency, which will likely have a ripple effect through financial markets as well as in politics.

Americans spent more at retailers selling everything from cars to camping equipment in July, but they spent less at electronics stores. The underlying reason could be that gadgets are getting cheaper.

The minutes from the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting highlight the week.

After locking up as many as a million people in camps in Xinjiang, Chinese authorities are destroying Uyghur neighborhoods and purging the region's culture. They say they’re fighting terrorism. Their aim: to engineer a society loyal to Beijing. Photo illustration: Sharon Shi. Video: Clément Bürge

In a confirmation hearing for his second term as Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell said the central bank would use its tools to tamp down inflation. Photo: Graeme Jennings/Press Pool

Three former Minneapolis police officers face federal charges that they violated George Floyd’s civil rights during his May 2020 arrest. Here’s what you need to know about the officers and the upcoming trial. Photo: Erin Ailworth/The Wall Street Journal

Travelers who meet certain requirements will be allowed to enter the U.S. beginning Nov. 8. WSJ’s Allison Pohle explains what these new rules mean. Photo: Seth Wenig/Associated Press

Macy’s has long been identified with the start of the holiday shopping season. But the company was hurting even before the coronavirus crisis hit the retail industry, raising questions about how far Macy’s star could fall. Photo Illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Warby Parker was one of the original direct-to-consumer brands, but now, the eyeglass-maker’s sales are split about evenly between its more than 140 brick-and-mortar locations and its online store. WSJ’s Charity Scott explains why this split is Warby Parker’s secret sauce. Photo: Adam Falk/The Wall Street Journal

This year’s Super Bowl drew advertisers willing to pay up to $7 million for a 30-second spot. WSJ advertising editor Suzanne Vranica and reporter Paul Vigna break down what to watch for from both new cryptocurrency brands and old regulars like Budweiser. Photo Illustration: Alexander Hotz/WSJ

As driverless vehicle companies Aurora and Embark are making their stock-market debut this month, WSJ’s George Downs spoke with the CEOs about why they’re focusing on autonomous trucks and whether that could spell a solution for the U.S. truck-driver shortage.

The foreclosure crisis, while healing, is still ongoing in many parts of the country where homeowners are predominately black or populated by other minority groups.