Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.396/14 registered at P.S. Kailaras, District Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 452 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that they alongwith co-accused armed with Lathi, Farsa entered in the house of the complainant and gave beating to him.This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have falsely been implicated in the case.They have not committed any offence.Except the offence under Section 452 of IPC, other offences are bailable.In fact, the complainant party gave beating to the applicant party after entering in their house and on the report of Bharat, cross-case bearing Crime No.395/14 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC has been registered against the 2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4 complainant party.Just to exert pressure for compromise, the complainant party has lodged this case against the applicants and others.Applicant No.1 is a government servant and applicants No.2 and 3 are students and there is no likelihood of their absconsion.In such premises, applicants prayed for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and they will co-operate in the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicants are free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.

Cited provisions: Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
No.34 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 3968 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.04.2019 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 919 dated 25.09.2016 under Sections 341/354B/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Nishit Chakraborty & Anr.... ... Petitioners Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury .. Advocate Mr. Ayan Chakraborty .. Advocate Mr. H. R. Singh .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a free fight between the co-owners of a multistoried apartment.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely (1) Nishit Chakraborty & (2) Runu Chakraborty @ Runa Das @ Mimi Das, be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in respect ofthe petitioners in C.C.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Court of JudicialMagistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.2.The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.209 of 2012 onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirupathur.The petitioners werethe elected President and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The complaint wasregistered in Crime No.40 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections477(A), 408 and 409 of I.P.C. After completing investigation, the Inspectorof Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, filed charge sheet and the case wastaken on file in C.C.No.209 of 2012 for offences punishable under Section477A, 408 and 409 of I.P.C. Challenging the proceedings, the above CriminalOriginal Petition has been filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 who were thePresident and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The FirstInformation Report as well as the charge sheet would disclose specificallegations that the petitioners and the Panchayat Clerk have jointlymisappropriated a sum of Rs.5,14,000/-.In this case, the petitioners areentrusted with the funds allotted by the Central Government under a scheme.The administrators of the fund, the petitioners are liable to account for theGovernment.Since the allegation is that the petitioners havemisappropriated the funds, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offenceof misappropriation.This may be a factor that can be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners indefence to escape from the penal liability after full-fledged trial.Hence,preserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all these factual contentionsbefore the trial Court at the time of trial, this Criminal Original Petitionis dismissed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition isclosed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District .2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
[Passed on 16 th Day of September, 2014] Per Shri S. K. Palo, J :-This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu- Ajay Singh @ Deepu, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated 12th December, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the subsequent order of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department, Bhopal dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2).Both the orders were issued under the National Security Act, 1980 ( for brevity it is referred as "the Act of 1980'').(2) The Superintendent of Police, Bhind filed a report before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 27-11-2013, stating that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons are not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases against the petitioner.Due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger.The Superintendent of Police has mentioned the details of seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which are as follows:-No. Crime Nos. Offence under Sections Police Station1. 94/2010 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC, Gormi Section 3(ii) of SC & ST Act.Superintendent of Police, Bhind, recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Station House Officers- Sunil Khemriya and Damodar Gupta, Police Station Gormi, District Bhind.The grounds are based, on the basis of registration of criminal cases against the petitioner.The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also recommended the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1980 and consequently, the State Government vide order dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the detention order of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal because the grounds for detaining the petitioner which have been taken, are baseless and without proper application of mind.(i) On the basis of false and bogus report, Crime No.94/2010 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC and Section 3(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 21-05-2012 passed by this Court in M.Cr.(3 ) WP No. 3322/2014We, therefore, quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 12th December, 2013 and Annexure P-2, dated 25th January, 2014, allowing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner be set at liberty at once, if not required, in any other case.Copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court for further transmission to the Secretary, Department of Home, Bhopal, MP for necessary action.

Cited provisions: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.477 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.He would further submit that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she came along with other accused.Other than that there is no allegations against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018Perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018 26.02.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
Kumar has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/10/2011, at about, 8 p.m., when the prosecutrix was all alone in her house, respondent entered thereinto, caught her hand, tied her mouth with a piece of cloth and subjected her to rape and threatened to kill in case she divulged the incident to anyone.At this juncture, upon arrival of her husband and daughter from Harda, respondent fled from the window while leaving his Gamcha on the bed.On 30/10/11 report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sirali and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment was perused.Prosecutrix (PW2) is a married woman.On the night of incident, her husband and daughter, quite unexpectedly, had come from Harda a day before and seeing her husband, the respondent had fled from the spot.Thereafter, prosecutrix was beaten by her husband.Dr. Rashmi Sharma (PW6), though noticed several injuries of Lathi on the thighs and buttocks of the prosecutrix, did not find any injury on her private parts.As per the evidence brought on record, these injuries were caused by her husband.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code
& 466, 467, 468 and 420 read with 109 IPC., seeks to quash the said proceedings.Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with the above direction.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1. JM-II, Erode.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Erode Town Police Station, Erode District.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code
Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2019 is admitted.The::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 2 Cri.489/2020 learned Addl.Public Prosecutor waives notice after admission.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::Criminal Application No. 489 of 2020 is filed for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail.Heard both the sides.Present applicants Sagar Vasudeo Patil (original accused No.2) and Sonya @ Sonu @ Lalit Ganesh Chaudhari (original accused No. 6) are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment is given to them.They were on bail during the trial.This Court has carefully gone through the record of evidence.On that day, the informant was intercepted by accused Bobdya and Bobdya wanted to take informant to Chingyadada.When informant tried to escape, he was assaulted.The informant then called his father on mobile.His father and deceased brother Bhau rushed to the spot.Bhau had brought iron bar with him.Then the incident started.It is alleged that present two applicants came to the spot and they took part in the incident by pelting stones and by using fist blows and kicks.There is no allegation against them that they::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 3 Cri.489/2020 assaulted the deceased.There is no allegation against them that they had used dangerous weapon like knife.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submitted that when there was an unlawful assembly aforesaid participation is sufficient for using Section 149 of I.P.C. against these applicants.He is heard on the point of use of Section 120-B of I.P.C. also.This Court is avoiding to discuss the evidence given for proving section 120-B of I.P.C. Other relevant facts are already mentioned in that regard.In view of the nature of the aforesaid material available against these applicants and as the applicants were granted bail during the trial, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep behind bars the applicants till disposal of the appeal.It is not certain as to how much time will be requried for disposal of the appeal.In the result, the following order.The application is allowed.The substantive sentence against the applicants is hereby suspended, subject to deposit of the fine amount.After deposit of the fine amount, the applicants are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only), by each of them.They may give one or more sureties.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::4 Cri.Criminal Application No. 1027 of 2020, which was filed for parole and which could not have been allowed, is hereby disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
ARDR CRR 2497 of 2017 + CRAN 4779 of 2017 Banwari Lal Sharma & ors.State of West Bengal & anr.Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vijay Verma, ...for the petitioners.Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Vora, ...for the Pvt. O.P.Ms. Anasuya Sinha, ...for the State.The matter was heard at length today.Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court at Jaipur.Before coming to the conclusion, the said High Court has called the parties to undergo mediation proceeding.Thereafter the mediation took place, but result was abortive.He further contended that the alleged incident took place at Jaipur where the petitioner no.1 had been working.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contended that there was persistent torture inflicted upon the victim/de 2 facto complainant.Even she was not taken care of while she was pregnant for the second time.When Doctor advised her for surgical operation, the present petitioner no.1 had expected normal delivery leaving aside the advise of the Doctor.According to him this is also a glaring example of perpetrated torture.Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary and from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
Accused Nos. 2 to 9 are persons who are controlling the business affairs of the accused No. 1 and are in-charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business thereof.JUDGMENT J.P. Singh, J.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, and order dated 10.2.2005 also passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, declining to recall the summoning order.I have heard Ms. CM.Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shobha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Santosh Kohli, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the point of admission, and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.The accused No. 1 was granted financial assistance for procuring raw material.The said cheque was dishonoured because the accused had closed the account meaning thereby that the accused knew that the cheque would be dishonoured.Notice was sent but in vain.I have also gone through the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing and perusing the record, was of the opinion that prima facie case was made out and accordingly summoned the accused persons.Accused No. 7, who is the petitioner before this Court, for the first time moved an application dated 5.3.2004, i.e. after more than four years, for recall of the summoning order.

Cited provisions: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.163/14 registered at Police Station Mada, District Singrauli for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POSCO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though, case is triable by the Special Judge but looking to the charges framed against the applicant, no offence is punishable for more than three years.Though, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC but the trial Court did not frame the said charge.Under such circumstances, if the applicant is not released on bail, his future will be spoiled with the bad company of harden criminals inside the jail.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.He submits that the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC.Also the learned Special Judge did not mention any reason in the order dated 12.6.2014 as to why the charge under Section 305 of the IPC is not framed against the applicant therefore looking to the gravity of the offence, he may not be released on bail.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Cited provisions: Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code
In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 5009 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Bijnor allowing the application moved by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to re-examine Rakesh Kumar and Virendra Singh in S.T. No. 220 of 2002 (State v. Deepak and Ors.), under Sections 302/324 IPC, police station Haldaur, district Bijnor.The revisionist Deepak along with two other co-accused Chandu and Sumer had been arrayed as accused in the FIR dated 18.5.2001, which alleged that the incident had taken place on 18.5.2001 at about 9 P.M. where the brother of the informant Madan was murdered by the accused persons including the revisionist.The role of the revisionist was to give a knife blow on the chest of the deceased while the other co-accused Chandu and Sumer were assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased at the time of incident.However, when the witnesses appeared in court, they turned hostile.An application ext.Kha 85, which contained a copy of a report in case No. 467 C of 2003 under Sections 452/504/506 IPC lodged at police station Haldaur, which alleged that the accused Sumer and Chandu (who have been granted bail in the present case) armed with country made pistols had intimidated and threatened the witness Rakesh Kumar on 25.7.2003 at 6 P.M. and had exerted pressure on them to turn hostile in the murder case.It was on account of this threat, that the witnesses could not give the true version in the court because there was such a great terror of the accused persons.On account of this application and the FIR in case crime No. 467 C of 2003, the impugned order had been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. 2, Bijnor.The principal ground for challenging the impugned order was that the application had been moved by O.P. No. 2 on 25.8.2004, i.e. after one year of the examination of the witnesses PW.

Cited provisions: Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code