Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent, dated23.07.2008, made in No.61/BDFGISSV/2008, whereby the order of detention was madeagainst the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982,terming him as 'Goonda'.2.Affidavit in support of the application along with the grounds ofattack and also the counter affidavit are perused.Added further,the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was an inordinateand unexplainable delay in consideration of the representation made by thedetenu.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the abovegrounds the order under challenge has got to be set aside.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the abovecontentions.

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Ashok Kumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned P.L. for the State.The appeal is admitted for hearing.Heard on I.A. No.4913/2016, an application on behalf of the appellant-applicant, T.S. Sengar, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, who has been convicted under section 467/471 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.25000/-; under Section 468/471 IPC to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-; and under Section 120-B IPC to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default to undergo further R.I. for six months on each count.Fine amount has been deposited and the accused- appellant has been released on bail till today.Keeping in view totality of the circumstances, I.A. No.4913/2016 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant-applicant shall remain suspended and he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 01-12-2016 and on such other dates as may be directed in that behalf.As the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been convicted under the Indian Penal Code, Office to examine as to whether this matter has to be listed before the Division Bench or not.Accordingly, I.A. No.4913/2016 is allowed and stands disposed of.Call for the record of the Court below.List along with the record for hearing.

Cited provisions: Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this casemay be sent to Mediation Centre for the purpose of settlement betweenthe parties for which the applicants are ready to deposit the cost.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for theapplicants, it is directed that applicants shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- withintwo weeks from today in the account head of Registrar General,Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court,Allahabad.In case, the aforesaid amount is deposited the notice shall beissued to O.P. No.2 returnable within a period of four weeks.The threefourth of the above mentioned deposited amount shall be paid to O.P. No.2 as expenses.This case shall be sent to Mediation Centre for furtherproceedings.After proceedings of the Mediation Centre, list this case before this Courton 1.4.2010.Till then no coercive step shall be taken against theapplicants in Case No. 806 of 2009 under sections 98-A, 323 I.P.C. andsection ¾ of D.P. Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Rampurin case the receipt of the aforesaid deposited amount is filed beforethe court concerned.List on 1.4.2010 for orders.Order Date :- 21.1.2010N.A.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.147 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC Police Station-Phephna, District-Ballia is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by the victim herself against as many as four persons including the applicant.The allegation is that after extending promise to marry, the applicant has established physical relationship with the victim at the pre-marital stage.She understands the far-reaching repercussions of pre-marital sex with unknown persons and now, when the applicant has wriggled out from his promise, she has lodged the present FIR.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar, involved in case crime no.147 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC Police Station-Phephna, District-Ballia be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.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 IPC.(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
The complainant was not in picture at all.As far as the sale deed is concerned, he was neither vendor nor vendee nor middle man or attesting witness of the instrument.He is completely a stranger to the aforesaid disputed sale deed.Two of them are related to vendee and two are said to be middle man in the deal but their roles have not been delineated at all.One Subodh Kumar Jain, respondent no. 2/complainant lodged an FIR despite the fact that he was not the party to the said transaction in any manner.This FIR was registered on 1.11.2011 at P.S. Kotwali Muzaffar Nagar vide Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, under Sections 420,467,468,471,379 IPC and 120-B IPC.The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer initially submitted the final report in the matter on the premise that the dispute relates to the evasion of stamp duty for which proceedings were already pending before the competent authority but subsequently the investigation was transferred, legal opinion obtained from the senior prosecutor and charge sheet under Section 420 IPC was filed against five accused including vendee Padma Jain, her husband Sunil Kumar Jain, her son Sarad Jain, alleged middle man V. K. Jain and his son Anmol Jain.The matter was adjudicated by the competent authorities.Remaining stamp duty was ordered to be paid and further a penalty of Rs. 40,990/- was also imposed.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary perused.This is first application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.400/16, Police Station Kotar, District Satna (MP), offences registered under Section 326, 294, 323, 506-B & 34 of I.P.C.So far as the other co-accused Mahendra Singh and Gyan Singh are concerned, in the said incident their role was different from the applicant and the applicant cannot get relief on the ground of parity.Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.Hence, the bail application is rejected.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vj

Cited provisions: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
% (ORAL) Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.8/2013 for the offences under Sections 323/379/392/411/509/34 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act is sought on the basis of Settlement arrived between the parties before the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, New Delhi.

Cited provisions: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19/06/2019 in connection with Chakdha P.S. Case No. 203 of 2019 dated 06/05/2019 under Section 448/325/326/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Abtab Sk. @ Atabiddin Sekh @ Atabuddin Sekh & Ors.....petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.R. 3137 of 2006 SB Ct. No. 34 + C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 In Re : Mr. Shyamal Dey None appears for the parties.No accommodation is sought for.I find from the records of the case that C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 was filed by way of a joint compromise petition at the instance of both the petitioner and the opposite parties for withdrawal of criminal case being C.G.R. No. 2173/2003 arising out of Bhowanipore P.S. Case No. 182 dated 04.08.2003 under sections 120B/420/467/468/471/477a/408 of the Indian Penal Code.The application so filed was not pursued.The revisional application being C.R.R. 3137 of 2006 along with C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 as such is dismissed.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard, Case-diary perused.As per prosecution story, 04/01/2020 complainant/prosecutix lodged an F.LR.against the present applicant that applicant is working with heruncle namely Manoj Meena, they are working in home loan business.On 03/11/2019 applicant came to house of prosecutix to collect the loan file, when prosecutix open the door, after that applicant collect the loan file and committed rape with her, on same day she informed to her father and mother but they did not lodged the FIR, again on 03/01/2020 applicant came to house of prosectix and try to commited rape with her, but due to shouting applicant run away from spot.She informed to her father and mother thereafter they lodged the FIR.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.Even then, they have not taken any action against the applicant nor an FIR was lodge.There is no criminal antecedents against the applicant.Now the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take considerable time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector 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 parties, 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 only) 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) Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump this order shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Vibha Vibha Pachori 2020.09.08 10:35:52 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
found that there was prima facie case against six persons, namely, Virbal, Bihari, Shishupal, Kandiya, Gangadhar and Gyasiya and he fixed the date for further proceedings against these six persons.Subsequent to the filing of this private complaint, in respect of the same matter, the Police filed a Challan Under Section 307, IPC against five persons, namely, Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, Ramchand and Manphool.Of these Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, are common accused in the complaint and the Challan.All the accused filed an application before the trial Court that both the complaint case and the Challan of the Police should be tried together.The Magistrate rejected this application against which the accused filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to the High Court.

Cited provisions: Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code
The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2020, under Sections 60/63 U.P. Excise Act, and 420 IPC, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during pendency of trial.(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 :- 8.9.2020 Mukesh Kr.

Cited provisions: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT R.C. Chavan, J.By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant challenges the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No. 49/1997, directing the applicant to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to the non-applicant.The facts, which gave rise to the present proceeding are as under:Non-applicant Shobha Nandeshwar claims to have been married to applicant Jagdish after she had carried the applicant's child in her womb.Since, the applicant neglected and failed to maintain her, in spite of the fact that he owns four acres land and also earns Rs. 50 per day from agricultural labour, the said Shobha filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli.She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from applicant Jagdish.Jagdish filed reply, denying that Shobha was married to him as per the customs or the prevalent rites applicable to the Buddhists.He denied having consented to any such marriage, though he admitted that Shobha was carrying pregnancy of nine months and also that she had given report to Police Station Arjuni Morgaon against Jagdish.He also admitted that Shobha had delivered a child in a hospital at Nawegaon Bandh and that the child died.He claimed that he was a teenage student of Junior College and, therefore, neither possessed any means nor any income, to be able to pay any maintenance to Shobha.When Shobha took the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned Magistrate, holding that the marriage was proved and that Jagdish was liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to Shobha.Aggrieved thereby, Jagdish has preferred this application.I have heard the learned Counsel for applicant Jagdish and also learned Counsel for non-applicant Shobha.

Cited provisions: Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code
From the affidavit filed before us today the following facts have been revealed: -On November 15, 2010 the aforesaid Jaladhar Singh Sardar fled away from Jabla More, P.S. 2 Manbazar, District Purulia while he was on the way back to Purulia Correctional Home along with his two surities, namely, Sri Deban Singh Sardar and Smt. Mamata Singh Sardar.Though it is revealed from the above report that Radiogram under Serial no. 144/AB/2010 dated November 15, 2010 was sent to(i) ADGP and I.G of Correctional Service, West Bengal and (ii) Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia, no satisfactory information has been furnished before us today in the aforesaid affidavit with regard to the necessary steps which might be taken in the aforesaid matter.At this stage, we are of the opinion, that filing of affidavits furnishing information to the Court is not enough for the officers concerned to discharge their functions for which they have been paid fat salaries from the public exchequer.Usually, it is not the practice of this Court to direct the responsible officers of the State Government to be present personally before us leaving aside of their important assignments 3 in connection with their respective services.But in this case, we think fit and proper to direct the following officers to be present before us to explain their conduct which amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which should have been taken in this case long back: -i) The Director General and Inspector General of Correctional Service, West Bengal;1 2017 CRA No. 137 of 2007 In Re : Amrit Singh Sardar & Ors.ii) The Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned range relating to the District of Purulia;iii) The Superintendent, District Correctional Home, Purulia;iv) The Superintendent of Police, District Purulia;v) The Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia;The aforesaid officers are directed to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing of this matter, i.e. on July 28, 2017 at the first sitting of this Court with relevant records to satisfy this Court with regard to the steps taken in the above matter for the period from November 15, 2010 till date in accordance with the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure.Heard in part.Further hearing of this appeal stands adjourned.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Counsel for the parties have chosen not to appear at the call by High Court Bar Association to boycott the Court.Let record of the trial Court be called for.Perused the judgment.Considered I.A. No.23926/2015, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.In view of the fact that appellants though were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 294, 325/34, 323/34, 395 and 506B of IPC; however, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 294, 323/34, 395 and 506B IPC and that co-accused Suresh, Deeprani and Haribai are being exonerated of all the charges and the fact that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty so granted, but without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC deserves to be suspended.The I.A. is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that on appellants, viz. Kannai and Mukesh Kurmi, depositing entire fine amount as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with a solvent surety Criminal Appeal No.3281/2015 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.3.2016 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended till further orders and they shall be released on bail.Let this appeal be listed for final hearing in due course under appropriate category.C.C. as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code