Fawazzx/fffffff huggingface dataset:
Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.The trial Court has imposed maximum sentence to suffer rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 2 imprisonment for 6 years and to pay total fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::3. Admit.Call for R & P.Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent State.The convicted appellant/applicant-accused urged for exercise of discretion in terms of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to suspend execution of sentence till disposal of the appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has manifestly erred in convicting the appellant, who was not at all involved in the monetary transaction which was indulged by her husband (co-accused).True at paragraph no.37 there is reference ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 3 about the admission given by the Investigating Officer that the witnesses did not spoke against the appellant/ applicant.The appellant was on bail during the trial which is evidence from paragraph no.9 of the final order.The appeal will take its own time for disposal.If the appellant/applicant succeeds, then irreversible position would occur in case of rejection of this application.Further the appellant/applicant is awarded with fixed term of sentence.There are no special or compelling reasons to reject this application.Moreover, the applicant is a lady.Having regard to all these facts, following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::(i) The execution and implementation of the substantive sentence imposed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nagpur in MPID Case No.5/2016 vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2020 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal on condition that the appellant / applicant shall deposit entire fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::bail on her furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.This order shall be executed only on confirmation of deposit of the find amount.Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the e-mail address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.JUDGE Rgd.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::

Relevant sections: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.443/2017, registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(K) and 354-D of IPC and under Section 67-A of I.T. Act.As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged a report on 16.12.2017 at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore alleging that she works in Ashiba Foos Private Limited.During working days she came in contact with co-accused Satish, who also works with her in the same company as House Keeping Supervisor.Two years back, co-accused Satish asked her to meet at Rajwada and from there on the pretext of some conversation prosecutrix was taken to Krishna Avenue, Limbodi where co-accused Satish committed rape upon her and also prepared a video.Prosecutrix asked him to delete the said video but he has not deleted the same and she was left at Rajwada.Before HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.State of M.P.) 3 nine months of lodging the FIR, applicant came to her and told that he has a video wherein she had physical relationship with Satish and also asked her to talk to him else her video will be viral.It is also alleged that applicant forwarded her video to one Lakhan and thereafter prosecutrix disclosed the whole incident to her brother, family members and police also.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence.There is no allegation against the applicant regarding rape.Police neither seized the mobile phone of Lakhan nor recorded his statement, therefore, no evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the present crime.Conclusion of trial will take time, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.(S.K.Awasthi) Judge ns Neeraj Sarvate 2018.01.25 13:39:31 +05'30'

Relevant sections: Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission.On perusal of the statement of witnesses, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Thereafter, this period has been further extended by this Court.He has never misused the liberty.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.24 10:49:44 +05'30'

Relevant sections: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary perused.This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with the Crime no.253/2017 registered at police station - Rajgarh, Dist - Dhar for commission of the offence punishable under sections 376(1), 450, 506-II of IPC.As per the prosecution story, on 08/12/2017 at about 15.00 pm the applicant came to the house of the prosecutrix and caused beating with the prosecutrix.After that, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter due to election rivalry.From the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that there was some altercation between the applicant and the prosecutrix, in which, she sustained some injuries.To prove grave offence, the prosecutrix made false allegation of committing rape against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 09/12/2017 without any specific reason.Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take time.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Page no 2 On the other hand, learned public prosecutor for the respondent / State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE AMOL N MAHANAG 2018.01.10 15:39:46 +05'30'

Relevant sections: Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.9.2013 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 422 of 2013 dated 14.7.2013 under Sections 341/325/379/50634 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ayub Biswas & Ors.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Tofique Uddin, J.)

Relevant sections: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
The applicants have filed first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in the case bearing Criminal Complaint No.429/13 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities)Heard the arguments of both the parties.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of false and fabricated facts a private complaint was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia whereby the cognizance under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken vide order dated 16.4.13 and order for warrant of arrest for securing the presence of the applicants was passed against them.Learned counsel further Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.2 M.Cr.State of M.P., 2012(1)MPHT, 237 has submitted that as alleged by the complainant in the complaint mere saying Chamra, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is not made out.Learned counsel further pleads that on the aforesaid allegations a report was lodged to the police station Pandokhar and the case was registered against the applicants as well as two other co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant.After investigation final report(Khatma Report) was filed against the applicants No. 1 and 2 However, the charge sheet was filed against the remaining co-accused and they were acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.12 which indicates that allegations made against the applicants are totally baseless.Learned counsel further contends that there was no need to issue warrant of arrest against the applicants by the trial court whereas the cognizance was not taken under the heinous offences on the basis of private complaint filed by the Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.3 M.Cr.On these grounds learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the bail application.During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that Special Case S.T.No.88/11 instituted against co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant has already been decided vide judgment dated 21.12.12 and the co-accused of this alleged incident have already been acquitted.

Relevant sections: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.105/2016 registered by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC as well as the Criminal Case No.2396/2016 pending before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.During the pendency of this application, an application under Section 320 (1) & (2) of CrPC has been filed on the ground that the parties have compromised their dispute, therefore, the criminal case may be quashed.

Relevant sections: Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
1 .6.2019 p.b.CRR 3340 of 2018 CRAN 3210 of 2018 In re: Manju Devi Agarwal @ Manju Agarwal & Ors.Mr. Saurav Chatterjee, Mr. Soumya Nag......for the petitioner.Mr. Arijit Bhushan Bagchi......for the O.P.In this revisional application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.907 of 2005 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar arising out of Jaigaon Police Station Case No.85 of 2005 dated 29th November, 2005 under Sections 147/148/149/447/379/325/506 /120B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner no.1 was married to Suresh Kumar Agarwal who is the brother of the opposite party no.2 of the instant case.However, on some matrimonial misunderstandings, the deceased father of the petitioner no.1 had instituted a case being Jaigaon Police Station Case No.69 of 2005 dated 29th September, 2005 under Sections 498A/325/34 of the IPC against the opposite party no.2 and others.The Investigating Agency has submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No.4 of 2006 dated 25th January, 2006 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.It is submitted that on the intervention of friends, associates and well wishers, the disputes and discord by and between the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the opposite party no.2 have been resolved amicably and a compromise has been arrived at by and between the parties.As a 2 result, both the parties have resolved their differences once and for all and both the parties have decided to withdraw and/or amicably settle the disputes as well as other criminal proceedings.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)

Relevant sections: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21/08/2019 in connection with Sabang P.S. Case No. 327 of 2019 dated 29/07/2019 under Sections 448/325/307/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Shyamal Sasmal ....petitioner.Mr. M. Chatterjee, Mr. B. Hutait ...for the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Relevant sections: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
Subsequently, an application was moved by informant with this contention that assailants gave indiscriminate firing over brother of informant and one of them was identified to be Pravendra @ Rahul, others may be identified if produced before informant and as there was previous enmity, hence, whole family was implicated by the informant.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 9.7.2020 S.K.

Relevant sections: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
Rejected md.CRM No. 5713 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.7.2016 in connection with Panchla Police Station Case No.197/2015 dated 05.06.2015 under Sections 448 / 427 /325 /326/ 307/354B /380 /379/436/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-Therefore, this application is rejected and dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya,J.) (Debi Prosad Dey,J.) 2

Relevant sections: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
Challenge is to an order dated 19.09.2018 passed by Special Judge, Gwalior (M.P.); whereby, charges under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of IPC are levelled against the petitioner on the allegation that while not holding the post as the President of the Society, the petitioner posing himself to be a President inducted 19 members in the society and executed sale-deeds between the period from 24.01.2003 to 17.11.2004 in favour of these 19 persons and embezzled Rs.2,88,500/-.To substantiate the contention, the petitioner led us through the documents filed along with the charge-sheet.On these contentions, petitioner seeks quashment of FIR.The respondents, on their turn, have repelled the contentions.

Relevant sections: Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
By this revision, the revision applicant questions legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Akola in Criminal Appeal no 18 of 2009 dismissing the appeal which arose from the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in Summary Criminal Case No. 9602 of 2006 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola.The facts, stated in brief, are as under :-That the first informant Ku.Swati Mhaisne lodged a report on 14.02.2006 at about 9 a.m. that she had gone to Shivam General Stores at Vardhman Nagar Kaulkhed, Akola to buy refill for the Pen.The applicant who was the shopkeeper was present in the shop.She gave Rs. 1/- to the applicant and asked for the refill.The applicant asked her name and called her inside and outraged her modesty by putting his hand on her cheek and also put his hand inside her petticoat, touching her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 3 private part.The girl frightened by the incident went to her house and narrated the incident to her aunt and to her uncle.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The prosecution had examined five witnesses.The applicant, in defence, examined himself and one witness.The trial Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs300/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.I have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the record and proceedings.In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 4 present case, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there was delay of about two days to lodge FIR and it is not explained by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the evidence of the PW 1, 3 and 4 was of hearsay nature and could not have been relied upon by the Courts below as corroborating evidence.The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for leniency and supporting the impugned Judgments delivered by the courts below, submitted that the conviction ought to be confirmed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The revision application lacks merits and stands dismissed.

Relevant sections: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
Item No. 58And In the matter of: Sudhangshu Biswas & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal .Opposite Party Mr. Dwipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Apalak Basu For the Petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.478 of 2011 dated 16.09.2011 under sections 448/379/427/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 1 2 (Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 2

Relevant sections: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present application of applicants No.1 Sittal Patel and applicant No.3 Hiralal Patel.Prayer is allowed.The application of applicants No.1 and 3 is dismissed being withdrawn.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused persons.No offence under Section 326 or 324 of IPC is made out against the present applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Under such circumstances, she prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Relevant sections: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code