Jharkhand High Court
Razi Ahmed Alias Ravi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2017
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
B.A. No. 295 of 2017 02/02.02.2017
On the second round of call, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
List this case in the next week.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar/-
B.A. No. 311 of 2017
02/02.02.2017
Learned counsel for
the petitioner prays and
allowed one week time to
file an appropriate affidavit
for correcting some
paragraph in this
application.
List this case in the
next week.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 289 of 2017
02/02.02.2017
At the request made by
the learned counsel for the
petitioner, list this case in
the next week.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 120 of 2017
02/02.02.2017
At the request made by
the learned A.P.P, list this
case in the next week.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 306 of 2017
02/02.02.2017
Call for the case diary
from the Court concerned.
Put up this case after
receipt of the same.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 384 of 2017
02/02.02.2017
Call for the case diary
from the Court concerned.
Put up this case after
receipt of the same.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 301of 2017
02/02.02.2017
Call for the case diary
from the Court concerned.
Put up this case after
receipt of the same.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
B.A. No. 298 of 2017
03/02.02.2017
As prayed for, list this
case in the last week of
February, 2017.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Amar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 152 of 2017
-----
1.Ezaz Hussain @ Ezaa Hussain
2.Md. Abdul Razique @ Sachin
3.Kamrul Ansari
4.Dinesh Oraon
5.Md. Ekrazul Ansari @ Ekrazul @ Md. Ekrazul
6.Manoj Mahli ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
nd
02/Dated: 2 February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are an accused for the offence under sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 11(1)(a)(d)(e), (g)
(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and under Sections 47(a),(b), 48, 49, 50, 54(i), 56 (a), (b) of Transportation of Cattles Rules, 1978 and under Section 4(a), 12(2)(3) of Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.
The petitioners are the owner, driver and cleaner of the vehicle which was transporting the bovine animals, alleged to be stolen animals.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not the owner of the bovine animals and not they are claim the same.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that these petitioners are owners, drivers or cleaner of the commercial vehicles which was transporting the bovine animals.
In view of the fact, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Nagri, P.S. Case No. 159 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 7075 of 2016.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 146 of 2017 Sanjay Yadav ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
nd
02/Dated: 2 February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act, and section 17 (i) (ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
It is alleged that there was a land dispute between the accused and the informant. Due to the land dispute, the son of the informant along with another was murdered by indiscriminate firing at the instance of the extremists. The son of the informant was alive, and he was taken to the hospital where he categorically stated before the informant (his father) the name of five persons who has murdered him, but the deceased has not taken the name of this petitioner. The restatement of the informant has been recorded wherein he has stated that the deceased has disclosed the name of only five persons. Thus, admittedly the name of this petitioner was not taken as an assailant. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C, reveals that there was land dispute between both the families, but no one has seen the occurrence.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Since in the dying declaration the name of this petitioner has not been taken by the deceased, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Chatra, in connection with Pratappur, P.S. Case No. 73 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1056 of 2013.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 95 of 2017
-----
Rakib Ansari ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that on the pretext of the marriage the petitioner developed a physical relationship with the informant. Both the informant and petitioner are major. It is alleged that the petitioner had agreed to marry her but after some time he denied to marry the informant. Since both the petitioners were major physical relationship developed on the pretext of marriage.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C-III, Ranchi, in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4087 of 2016(S.T. No.584 of 2016).
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 92 of 2017
-----
Sunil Chauhan ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner and others have committed theft in the house of the informant. The petitioner not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpires from the confessional statement of one Ramesh Nonia. It is alleged that from the possession of this petitioner and co-accused several house hold articles were recovered which was also identified by the informant. The police has already submitted the charge-sheet. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court in B.A.No. 10762 of 2016.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail, but cannot controvert the fact that similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No. 42 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1135 of 2016, subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial court and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 69 of 2017
-----
Ratan Lohar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that when the petitioner was custody in another case, he discloses to Riyaz that once he came out of custody he would torture the villagers and will extort rupees from them. On this allegation the F.I.R has been lodged by one of the villagers, there is no materials on record to suggest that the petitioner was demanding any extortion from the villagers and threatening them for this.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur, P.S. Case No. 168 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 782 of 2016.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 66 of 2017
-----
Shibu Mistry ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
04/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. It is alleged that the in-laws have committed murder of the deceased. It is alleged that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence, and the F.I.R. is based on information given by six years old son of the deceased. In the case diary, it has come that the family members i.e. the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased has assaulted and committed murder of the deceased and the statement of the six years old boy has been recorded in paragraph no.24 of the case diary, who has not named this petitioner as an assailants. The statement of Jubeda Khatoon and Sahnaj Khatoon was recorded in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the case diary where these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not present in the house rather the petitioner was working in Orissa on the date of occurrence.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Gawan P.S. Case No. 64 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1930 of 2016.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 303 of 2017
-----
1.Sandeep Oraon
2.Sawani Orain ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Cahturvedy, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are an accused for the offence under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The dispute arose between the informant and the petitioners on account of entering of rain water in to the house of the deceased-informant. An altercation has taken place between them which resulted in the assault. It is alleged that the deceased was assaulted by these petitioners by fists, cuffs and heel. The injured was taken to the hospital on 08.07.2015 where he was admitted and discharged on the next date i.e. on 09.07.2015. After discharged he succumbed to the injury on 12.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no intention to commit murder and no weapon was used. There was an altercation and on the heat of the moment the accident had taken place.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioners named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gumla, in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 272 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 869 of 2015 (S.T. No. 328 of 2016).
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 302 of 2017
-----
Ashirwad Rawani ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that while the informant, who is a major was sleeping in the roof, this petitioner climbed on the roof and committed rape upon her. It is alleged that earlier also on pretext of marriage there was physical relation between the parties.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Madhuwan, P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4005 of 2016.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 294 of 2017
-----
Razi Ahmed @ Ravi ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
The petitioner to implead the informant as opposite party no.2.
Issue notice to the newly added opposite party no.2 under registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week.
List this case after service of notice. In the meantime learned A.P.P. is directed to file counter- affidavit.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 383 of 2017
-----
Raj Kumar Yadav ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 376, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the petitioner was teasing the informant since long. It is stated that on the fateful day the petitioner entered into the house of the informant and tried to commit rape upon her, but at the right moment the mother and brother of the informant returned home, thereafter the petitioner fled away.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Ramgarh, in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 263 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1072 of 2016, with a condition that the petitioner will appear and mark his attendance, before the Officer-in-Charge, Bhurkunda, Police Station, once in a month.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 385 of 2017
-----
Pun Yadav ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
The petitioner has been initially made an accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and 17 of the C.L.A. Act., in connection with Manatu, P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 1363 of 2008.
It is alleged that there is an allegation that there was firing and cross firing by the petitioner along the extremist group and the police personnels, wherein two constable sustained injuries on their back and leg.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts of this case, I am not inclined to grant the privileges of bail to the petitioner. Hence, his prayer for grant of bail is, hereby rejected.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 387 of 2017
-----
Sudarshan Choudhary @ Sikari @ Dara Chaudhary ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P nd 02/Dated: 2 February, 2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 394, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
It is alleged that the petitioner was arrested in Hariharganj, P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016. It is alleged that after his arrest he confess his guilt and thereafter he was remanded as main accused in the instant case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the confessional statement there is nothing against this petitioner and there is no recovered from his possession. He lastly submits that the petitioner has been granted bail in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016, by the Hon'ble Court on 22.10.2016 vide B.A.No. 9050 of 2016 and thereafter this case has been instituted against him.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltanganj, Palamau, in connection with Lesliganj, P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 511 of 2016, with a condition that the petitioner will appear and mark his attendance, before the Officer- in-Charge, Lesliganj, Police Station, once in a month.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 389 of 2017
-----
Pachu Sao ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
03/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 386, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The allegation against the accused persons and others is that they demanded levy from the contractor. This petitioner has been levelled along with Sandip Sao and Ganesh Sao.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during trial the informant has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and not even identified this petitioner along with others. He further submits that similarly situated co- accused persons have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court in B.A. No.1996 of 2016 and 2498 of 2016, respectively. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is stand on similar footing.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Manika, P.S. Case No. 37 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 393 of 2015.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 63 of 2017
-----
Prakash Gagrai ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017
The petitioner has been initially made an accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with G.R.(POCSO) Case No. 23 of 2016, arising out of Chakardharpur, P.S. Case No. 14 of 2016.
The victim girl is aged about 15 years old and her statement has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C, which support the prosecution case. Further medical report suggest that physical relationship has been made with the victim girl .
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the facts of this case, I am not inclined to grant the privileges of bail to the petitioner. Hence, his prayer for grant of bail is, hereby rejected.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 155 of 2017
-----
Chandan Kumar ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the CBI ... ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. K.P.Deo, Advocate 02/Dated: 2nd February, 2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It is alleged that the petitioner by forging document has obtained employment under the C.C.L. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other accused persons who had such appointment in CCL by forged document where granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court in A.B.A. No. 4470 of 216, A.B.A. No. 4176 of 2016 and A.B.A. No. 5112 of 2016, respectively, with a condition of payment of Rs.20000/- to be deposited to the Advocate Association.
It is admitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and it is also admitted that some of the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2016.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A) of 2015-R, with a further condition that he will deposit Rs.15000/- to the Advocate Clerks Association. Further he will appear before the trial Court on each and every date. He will appear on the date of framing of charges and if he is not able to appear on the date fixed for framing of charge he will seek prior leave to the court below. This petitioner is further directed not to enter in the premises of the CCL except on the date fixed in the departmental proceeding so initiated against him.
Let this order be communicated to the CMD, CCL so that he may give necessary direction and communicate the same.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar