Dr Krishna Bihari Lall vs The State Of Bihar Through The … on 1 May, 2015

Jharkhand High Court
Dr Krishna Bihari Lall vs The State Of Bihar Through The … on 1 May, 2015
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    C.M.P. No. 57 of 2014
                                             ---
         Dr. Krishna Bihari Lall                        ---  ---    ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
         1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary,
            Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Government of Bihar
         2. The Secretary,Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Govt. of Bihar
         3. Additional Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry &
            Fishery, Government of Bihar
         4. The State of Jharkhand
         5. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Jharkhand
         6. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department,Govt. of Jharkhand - Respondents
                                             ---
         CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

         For the Petitioner:               Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
         For the Respondent No. 4-6:       JC to Sr. SC-I
                                            ---
03/ 01.05.2015

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks restoration of CWJC No. 8163/1999 which was
dismissed as not pressed by order dated 30.01.2014, which reads as under:

“None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, counsel for
the State is preset.

Learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, whose name is
reflecting in the cause list submitted that the petitioner has taken
back the brief from his office long ago and is not in touch with
him. It however appears that no one has entered appearance
thereafter on behalf of the petitioner. It also appears that earlier
also the writ petition was dismissed for default, in the absence of
representation on behalf of the petitioner, which was restored,
thereafter. The matter relates to the year 1999 and it appears that
the petitioner is no longer interested in the matter.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as
not pressed.”

3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had taken away the brief from his
counsel who was engaged in the said writ petition and had not entrusted it to any
such counsel. The matter was of 1999 and had been dismissed earlier also for
default. Learned counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner was gracious
enough to inform the Court on the fateful day despite the fact that the brief have
been taken away from him long ago that he was no longer in a position to represent
the petitioner. Therefore, on 30.01.2014, taking note of all these facts, this Court
was constrained to dismiss the writ petition as not pressed.

4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and averments in the
instant petition seeking restoration, I am not satisfied that the petitioner was
diligent enough in prosecuting his case. Therefore this Court is not inclined to
accept his explanation. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/

Md Sanaullah Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 30 March, 2015

Jharkhand High Court
Md Sanaullah Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 30 March, 2015
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                  Cr. M.P. No. 2379 of 2014

                 Md. Sanaullah Ansari son of Late Hazi Mohammad
                 Mohiuddin Ansari residents of Main Road Sisai P.O.
                 and Police Station Sisai, District Gumla
                                      ...    ...    ...   Petitioner
                                          Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand and others ... ...       ... Opp. Parties

                CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
                                   ............

                 For the Petitioner     : None
                 For the State          : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, A.P.P.


 2/30.03.2015

Nobody appears on behalf of petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed for non-
prosecution.

(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Binit

Ravi Biswakarma Alias Ravi Lohar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2015

Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Biswakarma Alias Ravi Lohar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2015
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        B. A. No.8653 of 2014
          Ravi Biswakarma @ Ravi Lohar.      .......... Petitioner.
                               -Versus-
          The State of Jharkhand.            .......... Opposite Party.
                                 ------
         CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
                                 ------
          For the Petitioner :   Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
          For the State      :   A.P.P.
                                 ------
04/03.03.2015

: Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of motorcycle theft. Motorcycle, bearing
Registration No.JH-05V-1158, was stolen by miscreants.
During investigation, stolen motorcycle has been recovered
from possession of one Ravi Narayan Patar who has disclosed
that he has purchased the said motorcycle from the present
petitioner and produced an affidavit sworn by father of the
present petitioner.

It is submitted that nothing incriminating has been
recovered from possession of the petitioner. He has not sold
any motorcycle to said Ravi Narayan Patar and he is
languishing in jail custody since 25th July, 2014.

Counsel for the State has opposed the petitioner’s
prayer for bail.

Considering period of detention of the petitioner in jail
custody coupled with the fact that stolen motorcycle has not
been recovered from his possession, the petitioner, above
named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella, in connection with Adityapur
P.S. Case No.245 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.680 of
2010.

(D. N. Upadhyay, J.)
Sanjay/

Ms National Printers Represented … vs Principal Secretary Hrd Cum State … on 11 February, 2015

Jharkhand High Court
Ms National Printers Represented … vs Principal Secretary Hrd Cum State … on 11 February, 2015
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(C)No. 151 of 2015
                                             ­­­­­­­ 
                  M/s National Printers, proprietor Apex Products Private Limited 
                  having its office at 8H and 81 Industrial Area, Namkum, Ranchi­
                  834010 represented through its 010 represented through its Director 
                  Sri Krishan Kant Kedia, son of Sri Gopi Chand Kedia, resident of 
                  Lalpur, PO & PS lalpur, District Ranchi 834 001
                                                                         ... Petitioner
                                            Versus
                         State of Jharkhand
                  1.     Principal Secretary, HRD­cum­State Project Director, Jharkhand 
                  Education   Project   Council,   New   Cooperative   Building,   Shyamli 
                  Building, Doranda, PO & PS - Doranda District, Ranchi 834024

                  2.   State   Project   Director,   Jharkhand   Education   Project   Council, 
                  New  Cooperative   Building,  Shyamli  Building,  Doranda,  PO  &  PS  - 
                  Doranda District, Ranchi 834024 (Jharkhand)

                   3.    Administrative   Officer­cum­indenting   Officer,   Jharkhand 
                   Education   Project   Council,   New   Cooperative   Building,   Shyamli 
                   Building,   Doranda,   Doranda   PO   &   PS   -   Doranda   District,   Ranchi 
                   834024 (Jharkhand)

                 4.    Principal   Secretary,   Human   Resources   Department   (HRD), 
                 Union  of India  (UOI) Shasrti Bhawan C­Wing, Dr. Rajender Prasad 
                 Road, New Delhi­110001. 
                                                                            ....Respondents
                                              ­­­­­­
             CORAM :   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                                              ­­­­­­           
                 For the Petitioner                  : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
                                                     : Mrs. Shilpi John, Advocate
                                                     : Mrs. Nikita Saboo, Advocate
                                                     : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent­State      : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to A.A.G 
                                                     : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
                                                     : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate
                                               ­­­­­­­

03/11.02.2015

  Issue notice. 

Mr.  Saket   Upadhyay,  the   learned  J.C.   to  A.A.G.  appears  and 
waives service of notice on behalf of respondent­State of Jharkhand.  

Mr. M. S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 
petitioner submits that, after a copy of order no. 15/22012 EE. XI 
dated 18.10.2013 is made available to the petitioner, the petitioner 
would   file   appropriate   application   seeking   amendment   in   the   writ 
petition. 

Post the matter after four weeks. 

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
             Amit/ 

Manik Karmkar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2014

Jharkhand High Court
Manik Karmkar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2014
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 ---
                      B.A.No. 7630 of 2014
                                -----
            Manik Karmakar                    ... Petitioner.

                                      Versus

             State of Jharkhand                   ... Opposite Party.
                                 ---
          CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                                 ---
          For the Petitioner     :M/s.Pratiush Lala, Advocate.
          For the State          : A.P.P.
                                 -----
05/01.11.2014

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the informant i.e. the mother and father of the victim girl have been
examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and they have not supported the allegation of
commission of rape by this petitioner on their daughter; that in the
medical evidence also there is no material to corroborate the allegation of
rape.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that the examination of the victim lady
would only reveal whether occurrence had taken place or not and in her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim lady has stated
about the commission of rape by this petitioner.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,
the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

The trial court shall expedite the trial and take
coercive steps for procuring the attendance of the victim lady. It is made
clear that if the victim lady is not examined within six months from the
date of this order petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer in the trial
court.

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

Biswas

Suresh Singh vs Water Resources Departement on 21 November, 2012

Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Singh vs Water Resources Departement on 21 November, 2012
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W. P. (S) No. 6268 of 2012
                                   ---

                  1. Suresh Singh
                  2. Nandu Baitha
                  3. Ram Prit Mali                    ...      ...     Petitioners
                                           Versus
                  1. The State of Jharkhand
                  2. The Secretary, Water Resources Deptt.,
                     Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
                  3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Deptt.,
                     Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi      ...      ...    Respondents
                                     ---


                  CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
                                      ---
                  For the Petitioners     : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
                  For the Respondents     : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, G.P. VI

                                     ---

2/21.11.2012

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner shall file representation for payment of the
salary, therefore, she has sought the permission of this Court to
withdraw this petition for the relief of payment of salary. So far the
relief of regularisation is concerned, she has requested to dispose of
the present case in terms of the judgment of this Court dated
31.07.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003.

As such, petitioner is permitted to move a representation
for the payment of salary and present petition is disposed of for the
prayer of regularisation in terms of judgment dated 3107.2012 passed
in W.P.S. 5924 of 2003.

(Alok Singh, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 2

Lalan Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 19 November, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Lalan Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 19 November, 2011
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        W.P (Cr.) No.77 of 2011
                                                 -------
                  Lalan Prasad                                    ....   Petitioner

                                             -Versus-
                  The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                   ...... Respondents
                                            ------
                          CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
                                                ------
                  For the Petitioner      :            Mr.Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
                  For the State           :            J.C. to G.P. III


                                                     ------

3/ 19.11.2011

Pursuant to the order dated 23rd September, 2011, notice was ordered to be
issued upon the respondent no.2. It appears from the office note that the notice was
issued to the respondent no.2 but there is no mention about any service report of the
notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has not
yet appeared.

Let this case be listed after the service report and / or the appearance of the
respondent no.2, which ever is earlier.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
B.S/

Pankaj Kumar Sahni vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Sahni vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       B.A. No. 7768 of 2011

        Pankaj Kumar Sahni                 .....   Petitioner
                               Versus
        The State of Jharkhand      ....     Opposite Party

        CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

        For the Petitioner      :Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh
        For the State           :A. P.P.

                             -----
2/18.11.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
Prosecution.

Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections
366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.
169 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1903 of 2011.

There is allegation against the petitioner to have kidnapped the minor
daughter of the informant. The impugned order shows that the statement of
the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she has
supported the case stating that she was kidnapped by this petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release
the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Sahni on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of
the petitioner is rejected.

(H. C. Mishra, J)
Umesh/-

Shanti @ Sumitra @ Akansha vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Shanti @ Sumitra @ Akansha vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             B.A. No.7694 of 2011

          Shanti Marandi @ Sumitra @ Akansha @ Shanti              .....   Petitioner
                                   Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                   ....              Opposite Party

          CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

          For the Petitioner          :       Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi
          For the State               :       A. P.P.

                                  -----
2/18.11.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
Prosecution.

Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections
147/148/149/120B/302/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of
Arms Act read with Section 17 of CLA Act and Section 13 of U.A.P. Act read with
Section 3 / 4 of Explosive Substance Act, in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case
no32 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.1763 of 2010.

The petitioner is named in the FIR being a member of the extremist group
and there is allegation against the extremist group to have exploded land mines in
which one vehicle was exploded and five persons were killed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.

(H. C. Mishra, J)
R.Kumar

Mithilesh Mehta @ Mithlesh Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Mithilesh Mehta @ Mithlesh Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2011
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             B.A. No.7695 of 2011

          Mithilesh Mehta @ Mithlesh Mehto               .....   Petitioner
                                   Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                         ....      Opposite Party

          CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

          For the Petitioner         :      Mr. Deepak Kumar
          For the State              :      A. P.P.

                                  -----
2/18.11.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
Prosecution.

Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 461 and
379 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case no.16 of
2011, corresponding to G.R. No.163 of 2011.

The case relates to theft of explosive material from the Magazine of
Vananchal Enterprises.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Mithilesh Mehta @ Mithlesh Mehto 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, Koderma, in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case
no.16 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.163 of 2011.

(H. C. Mishra, J)
R.Kumar