Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Heard on I.A.No.12476/2017 an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant.This is first application under section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant, who has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under sections 354 and 354-A of IPC to undergo R.I., for 1 year, 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- & Rs.200/- respectively and under section 7/8 of POCSO Act to undergo R.I., for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.Considering the fact that during trial the appellant remained on bail, there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted earlier and this appeal is likely to take considerable time for hearing, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find this a fit case to grant bail and to suspend the sentence of appellant.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the substantial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and appellant Mohit Mirdha shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3.1.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.12476/2017 stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules.(Anurag Shrivastava) Judge M.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
Ct.28 RP 176 CRM 11845 of 2017 In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24th November, 2017 in connection with Sankarail P.S. Case No.1028/16 dated 13.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149 /353/283/427/436/307/295A/296/506/332/333/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act.And In the matter of : Ainul Laskar @ Aynul Laskar .... Petitioner Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury ..... For the Petitioner Mr. Prodipto Ganguly ..... For the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that he is in custody for 11 months.It is further submitted that no overt act was attributed by the petitioners in the instant case and co-accused persons similarly circumstanced have been enlarged on bail.Therefore he may be enlarged on bail.Learned lawyer for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sankrail Police Station without express permission of the Court and he shall provide the particulars of his place of residence to the investigating officer as well as the trial Court.He shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
He alleged that he had supplied Agrochemicals to the said Company from 1999-2000 to 2002 when the outstanding was Rs.6, 65,952/-.Such complainant alleged that during 31.12.2002 to 25.8.2004, the management/directors of the said Company did not make any payment.In the end of 2004 the complainant could collect some payments and the outstanding amount as on that date was Rs.3, 65,000/-.In the said written complaint, it was claimed that despite being repeatedly approached, the directors of the Company refused and neglected to make any payment whatsoever.Such continuous uninterrupted torture by not responding to the request for repayment of the money resulted in psychosomatic disorder.The complainant thus became sick.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar C.R.R. No. 3039 of 2007 Kingshuk Neogi Vs.The State of West Bengal & Anr.S.P. Talukdar, J.: Petitioner, Kingshuk Neogi, by filing the instant application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Kotwali Police Case No.207/2007 dated 6.7.2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1053 of 2007 pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, under Section420/120B of the Indian Code.He has been claiming that certain sum of money is due and payable from the said company.Such O.P. No.2 by letter dated 15.4.2004 addressed to the M/S. Debijhora Tea Company Ltd., demanded an amount of Rs.7, 15,500/- along with interest @ 24% per annum.The said O.P. No.2 thereafter as complainant filed a written complaint on 6th of July, 2007 before the Office-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station at Jalpaiguri.It was then claimed that he had been denied payment of an amount of Rs.3, 65,000/-.On the basis of the said written complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of the Kotwali, Police Station, district Jalpaiguri started Kotwali Police Case No.207 of 2007 dated 6th of July, 2007 under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The present petitioner being so implicated in the said case was arrested and was put under detention by the police authority.He was initially pressurized for payment of an amount of Rs.3,65,000/. In view of non-response to such undue request, he was formally arrested.On 10th July, 2007, the petitioner's Association namely Indian Tea Planters' Association submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri against such arrest of the petitioner on allegations of non-payment of some outstanding dues for supplying chemicals to the Tea Garden.The transaction between the parties being purely commercial in nature and since admittedly payment had been made from time to time, there could be no reason for the police authority to be so active as to arrest the present petitioner.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
DATE : 9th JUNE, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.This is an application by applicants who are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station, District Hingoli on 10.01.2017 for commission of offence punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeking quashment of proceedings.Respondent no. 3 - informant has caused appearance before us through advocate Mr. Katkar and has presented affidavit.The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.Informant is also personally present before the Court and admits the contents of the affidavit marked 'X'.It is recorded in the affidavit that after lodging First Information Report on 10.01.2017, on the next day, she went to her husband alongwith child and is cohabiting with her husband.It is further stated that the First Information Report was lodged because of mis-understanding between husband and wife and at the instance of members of her ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 ::: {3} criappln1371.17.odt family.Respondent no. 3 - informant further states that she is happily continuing her marital life with her husband and she has no objection if the complaint lodged by her registered at Hatta Police Station vide Crime No. 5/2017 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::Considering the stand taken by the informant and contents of affidavit Exh. X, the criminal application deserves to be allowed.Criminal proceeding initiated against applicants being Crime No 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station on 10.01.2017 for offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code stands quashed.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::

Cited provisions: Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Referring to the said allegations terming them as false and concocted, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the court of Crl.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10 Metropolitan Magistrate alleging offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.It may be mentioned here that the other persons who were impleaded as respondents in the petition under DV Act also filed similar complaints, all the said complaints having been inquired into under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the Metropolitan Magistrate.In each criminal complaint, including the one preferred by the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 500 IPC, the respective complainant appeared as the solitary witness (CW-1).The second respondent was married to Sidharth Kasana, son of the petitioner, on 15.02.2010, but the marriage ran into rough weather and she statedly left the matrimonial home.Eventually, she filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) on 26.06.2014, attributing certain acts of commission, inter alia to the petitioner (father-in-law), others impleaded in the said proceedings being inclusive of the husband, the mother-in-law, sisters-in-law etc. In the said petition under DV Act, she levelled certain allegations against the petitioner as well.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed all the abovesaid complaints, by order dated 20.08.2015, inter alia, observing that the same were premature, the falsity or otherwise of the allegations of domestic violence attributed by the second respondent in the proceedings under DV Act being a matter yet to be adjudicated upon.The petitioner and other similarly placed complainants assailed the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2015 in the court of Sessions, the challenge by the petitioner being through Crl.

Cited provisions: Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J.This is an appeal, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order, as contained in the operative part of a common judgment dated 30-4-2001 passed by III ASJ, Chhatarpur in S.T. Nos. 86/97, 213/96 and 140/90, directing retention of a 12 bore gun, ten cartridges and a wrist watch, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant in custody of Court till conclusion of the trial of the absconding accused persons.The appellant is amongst the persons, who were prosecuted and tried on the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Sections 397 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code.Although, for want of incriminating evidence, learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the offences yet, he proceeded to direct retention of gun on the ground that some of the accused were still absconding.

Cited provisions: Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
As per prosecution story, the incident took place on 04.07.2018 when the brother of applicant namely; Sachin along with his accomplice fired on his father from a fire arm owing to some property dispute.The applicant was hand in glove with his brother and was involved in conspiracy and had committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B of IPC against his own father.Accordingly, case has been registered against them.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the scene of crime, rather he was at some other town as a tourist along with his wife.It 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) has also been pointed out that there was some property dispute of applicant with his father.On 30.05.2018, the applicant had filed a report against his father and his uncle Mukesh and on that fateful day, the applicant was physically abused by his father on account of property dispute.He also submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.There is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime.The conclusion of trial will take a long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the objector has filed a document which is a whatsapp message between the mother of applicant and his uncle which focusses on resolving the dispute between the warring parties.Hence, the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.He also lodged report against Omprakash on 30.05.2018 and also the fact that the applicant was not present on the date of incident where the incident took place, it would be proper to enlarge 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) the applicant on bail, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant- Santosh is allowed.Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2018.12.01 17:06:51 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
Shri M.K. Soni, learned counsel for the objector.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.180/2019 registered at Police Station Gopalganj, Distt.Sagar for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC.The allegation against the applicant, in short, is that the prosecutrix aged about 25 years is a married woman having one daughter, but she is living separately from her husband Ranjeet Tiwari.She has alleged that on the pretext of marriage the applicant made physical relations with her from 10/2/2017 upto 20/5/2019 and they have also resided in rented rooms at different places.On the basis of concocted story to implicate the applicant, the case has been registered against the applicant.The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 2/7/2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application.Looking to the documents filed by the objector, it appears that the prosecutrix and her husband have filed a divorce application before the Family Court, but till date no order of dissolution of marriage has been passed in that application.C.C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 24/07/2019 15:17:45

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Y.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant.This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 306 & 34 of I.P.C in connection with Crime No.46/2016 registered at Police Station Umariya Distt.The applicant No.1 Ramnath is brother-in-law (Devar), applicant No.2 Pan Bai is mother-in-law and applicant No.3 Munna Raidas is father-in-law of deceased.The prosecution has alleged that Panbai and Munna were in occupation to harass the deceased for demand of dowry.The marriage was solemonized more than 7 years back from the date of incident, however the presumption of section 113-A would not attract.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

Cited provisions: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.This is first bail application filed by the applicant Lekhram Luniya under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.78/2019, registered at P.S. Majhauli, District Jabalpur under Sections 354, 354-D, 506, 376 of IPC.A s per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2019 prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Majhauli, District Jabalpur averring that when she was returning from police station to her house after lodging report of the applicant, on the way, at Indrana Chowk, applicant meet her and caught hold of her hand with bad intention and molested her.On that police registered Crime No.78/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 of IPC.For the first time on 27.02.2019 prosecutrix disclosed the fact that on 14.02.2019 applicant also committed rape with the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix was major.Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that prosecutrix was major, in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix on 18.02.2019, it is not Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48 2 MCRC-12165-2019 mentioned that applicant also committed rape with her.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
The application is hereby allowed.The applicant - SANTOSH RAJARAM WAFARE @ BACCHA PATIL in connection with Crime No.I-371 of 2018 registered with Parner Police Station, Parner, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 376 (d), 363, 392, 384, 120(b), 323, 504, 506 (2), 34 of Indian Penal Code be released on bail on furnishing P.B.::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
persons and filing a charge-sheet in Crime No.143/2020 registered at Police Station Sirsod District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC but the police has neither arrested the accused nor has concluded the investigation so far.So far as the prayer made by the applicant for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, "it is obligatory on the part of the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-34388-2020 Sanjay Kushwah Vs.State of MP and another respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of chargesheet.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.

Cited provisions: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.1.The petitioner by name R. Sekar, who has been detained as "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 04.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.Further, he brought to our notice that apart from copy of First Information Report, statements of witnesses were duly served on the detenu.Coming to the ground case, admittedly, copies of all the relied on documents were supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.In the First Information Report it is specifically stated that, VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The Sub-Inspector of Police, J9, Thuraipakkam Police Station has reiterated the same thing in his statement.

Cited provisions: Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code