Petitioners are co-accused in Special Case No.741 of 2024 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri Mayur D Bhanu, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

3. This Court, qua two of the accused i.e., accused Nos.23 and 69 in W.P.No.29510 of 2024 disposed on 4-11- 2024 has held as follows:

"........

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45326 Against the petitioners, non-bailable warrant is issued as is issued against several of the accused who were not present. Whether a non-bailable warrant could be issued or not for securing the presence of the accused, need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of TARSEM LAL V. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61, considers the very issue and holds as follows:

SEBI and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies have not filed their reports.

2. Investigating Officer is directed to communicate this order to the officer concerned of SEBI as well as Mr. P. K. Dutta, learned Advocate who ordinarily represents SEBI as well as the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for due compliance.

3. Let the matters appear on 25.11.2024.

4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue for a period of four weeks from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

4. In brief, the present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the appellant's suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the event the divorce suit subsequently initiated by the wife is decided, the same may prejudice the outcome of the present appeal.

6. That apart, the divorce suit was initiated by the wife subsequent to the initiation of the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. Accordingly, apart from the husband otherwise being entitled to an order of stay in lieu of the circumstances as indicated above, the principle of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be deemed to be applicable in the present case.

Petitioner is in custody for 11 months. He submits there was a romantic relationship between the parties. Victim has already been examined. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the bail prayer.

3. Inspite of notice nobody appears for the victim.

4. We have considered the deposition of the victim. Though she is a minor, she admitted there was friendly relationship between the parties. Her deposition is complete. There is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about 170 days. It is further submitted no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for bail on parity.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statements of witnesses show petitioner was present at the spot. However, allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been attributed to him. He stands on the same footing with co- accused viz. Jinarul Sk. @ Bucha and Sujauddin Sk. @ Md. Sujauddin who have been enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances and in view of the period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we are of the opinion further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.

Heard learned lawyers for both parties.

2. Petitioner submits there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. He is in custody for about more than four and half months. He prays for bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail prayer.

4. Inspite of notice, nobody appears for the victim.

5. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of victim supports the version of the petitioner that there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. Petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time. There is no chance of trial concluding in the near future, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Investigation is complete. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim was a minor.

3. Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. We have considered the materials on record. Victim was a minor and the petitioner subjected her to sexual assault. However, investigation is complete. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions.

Heard learned Advocates for both the parties.

2. We have considered the materials on record. The dispute arose out of a commercial transaction. Mere failure to comply with the terms of a commercial arrangement per se would not attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion though custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail, he requires to cooperate with the investigation.

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he is in custody for about two years and seven months. It is further submitted there is inordinate delay in trial. Accordingly, he renews his prayer for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Though narcotics above commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner, we find petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2½ years. His bail prayer was rejected in December, 2023. Thereafter only two out of nine witnesses have been examined till date. There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner has been able to make out a case of breach of his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score. Bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference in this regard may be made to Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

1. Petitioner/defendant challenged herein order no. 91 dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd court Ranaghat, Nadia in Title Suit No. 78 of 2010. By the order impugned learned court below accepted local investigation Commission report provisionally and fixed the next date for hearing argument of the suit.

2. The brief background of the present case is that one Kumar Krishan Mondal since deceased, father of the petitioner and the original opposite party no. 1 (predecessor of present opposite parties) was the absolute owner of the land measuring about 8.25 decimal in plot no. 452 by way of deed of conveyance dated 24th August, 1955. The said opposite party no. 1, since deceased purchased 5 decimal of the land of the suit property out of said 8.25 decimal of the land from his father aforesaid Kumar Krishna Mondal by a registered deed dated 10.07.1969. Thereafter the said Kumar Krishna died intestate leaving behind legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein, defendant/petitioner herein and another son Bimal Mondal and his widow and two daughters who jointly inherited the remaining 3.25 decimal of land of their father in the suit plot.

Nobody appears for the petitioner.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is involved in trafficking women for sexual exploitation. Date has been fixed for recording evidence. Under such circumstances we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

3. Application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits there was an intimate relationship between two young persons. They had eloped and married voluntarily. He prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim is a minor.

3. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of the minor supports the contention of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion no worthwhile purpose would be served in committing the petitioner to custody. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

FAT 191 of 2020.

Mr. Sudvasattva Banerjee Mr. Shounak Mukherjee, Mr. Shubradip Roy, Advs.

..........for the appellant/ plaintiff/decree holder in FAT 191 of 2020 and for the respondent in FAT 194 of 2020.

2

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter arises out of a judgment on admission passed by the Trial Court and the consequential decree.

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.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, under Sections 354A/354B/323/506/509/188/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners' case is that G.R. No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Mita Roy, wife of Shri Pradip Roy, residing at 8B, Abhoy Mitra Street Police Station-

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.

Potomac Watch: Stacey Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race to republican Brian Kemp, and to this day she's never accepted the result. In 2022 the progressive democrat will take him on again, despite still being mostly focused on "voter suppression." Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Everyone is blabbing about the metaverse. But what does this future digital world look like? WSJ’s Joanna Stern checked into a hotel and strapped on a VR headset for the day. She went to work meetings, hung out with new avatar friends and attended virtual shows. Photo illustration: Tammy Lian/The Wall Street Journal