Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.64 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 342, and 376 IPC, P.S. Lalapur, District Prayagraj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has enticed away the victim.Submission made by learned counsel that both the parties has jotted down the marriage agreement dated 10.04.2019 signed by both of them.She remained in the company of applicant about fortnight.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim has roamed around for 10-12 days with the applicant, which clearly shows that the applicant is a consenting party.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.04.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar Bharatiya be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.64 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 342, and 376 IPC, P.S. Lalapur, District Prayagraj with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.62/2019 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 326 read with 149 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main allegation is on Rishi Singh, who caused injury to the injured Surendra with a farsa and as per Citi Scan report, Surendra sustained fracture in left parital bone and left temporal bone.Present applicants have been falsely implicated.Under these circumstances they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently this application of applicant under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 18th June, 2019 and on such other dates fixed by him and shall also cooperate in the investigation.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further 2 MCRC-22455-2019 abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) V. JUDGE ALOK KUMAR 2019.06.04 11:28:49 AKS +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
ALLOWED md.CRM No. 5246 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.07.2018 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.911 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 498A/307/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ;And In Re:-Tarun Kabi ... Petitioner Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Aditishankar Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Nirupam Dhali, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.911 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 498A/307/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The petitioner is the husband of the victim and has come up before this Court since the petitioner's prayer has been rejected by the Sessions Court while the other relatives have been granted anticipatory bail.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
The appellant Bajirao and his.JUDGMENT Hemeon, J.at Linga, Chhindwara tahsil; and during the trial charges under Sections 468 and 474 'ibid' were added against the appellant.In appeal, I held that the addition of the charges during the trial might have been prejudicial to the appellant and quashed the convictions and sentences.The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, thereafter moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to file a complaint against the appellant under sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.The objections raised by the appellant were overruled and the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, directed a complaint to be filed against him.under those sections in a competent Court.The appellant has now come up in appeal against that order.The case against him was, briefly stated, to the effect that the appellant being covetous of Kishan's valuable field, forged with the help of others a sale deed (articles K-1 to K-4), dated.the 25th December 1950, purporting to have been executed by Kishan, had it registered and retained it.Kishan heard a rumour of this and made inquiries from the appellant who assured him that there was no truth in the rumour.The appellant then being apprehensive that the matter would eventually come to light killed Kishan and threw his body into a river.

Cited provisions: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER Palok Basu, J.In this transfer application under Section 407, Cr.P.C. a short question arises to decide which the necessary factual background needs to be mentioned.There is a shop known as Janta Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. situated in Rudrapur, district Deoria, Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant was allegedly the salesman in the said Bhandar and one Gaya Prasad Dwivedi was said to be the Secretary.On 16-2-1988 an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which gave rise to the case Crime No. 444 of 1990 of Police Station-Rudrapur.After investigation the police has admittedly filed a charge sheet under Section 380, I.P.C. against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which is now pending in the court of I Judicial Magistrate, Deoria.Another F.I.R. has been lodged by Gaya Prasad Dwivedi through the Co-operative Cell at Gorakhpur under Section 409, I.P.C. against Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant.The controversy is as to whether the two cases which admittedly relate to the goods belonging to the said Bhandar should be tried together by the same court or not.Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant stressed that since all the witnesses even in the case instituted at Gorakhpur belonged to Deoria, the place of incident also happens to be Rudrapur situated in the district of Deoria and that the allegations pertain to the district Deoria, interest of justice requires that two trials should be held in Deoria.Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, however, stated that since the Gorakhpur F.I.R. was properly investigated by the Co-operative Cell has jurisdiction to institute the charge-sheet in Gorakhpur, the said trial should remain in Gorakhpur.The C.J.M. Deoria is directed to try the two cases referred to above himself or direct both of them to be tried by a competent court.

Cited provisions: Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code
Prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the appellants, who have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in S.T. No.83 of 2010 under Section 498-A I.P.C, 304-B I.P.C, 201 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G. A. for the State.Perused the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge and lower court's record Ghanshyam Harijan, appellant no.1 is the husband of deceased and no new ground for bail is made out.Accordingly, prayer for bail of Ghanshyam Harijan, appellant no.1 is rejected.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the age and relationship of Bairagi and Smt Dela @ Dhela in my opinion the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.Pending appeal appellants Bairagi and Smt Dela @ Dhela are convicted in S.T. No.83 of 2010 shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bonds and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.Till further orders realization of fine, if any, shall also remain stayed.Order Date :- 14.11.2011/Shahnaz

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
C. No.8582/13 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31/10/13, M.Cr.C. No.279/15 was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months vide order dated 4/2/15, M.Cr.C. No. 3357/15 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29/4/15 & M.Cr.C. No. 8728/15 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27/10/15 with liberty to file the fresh application after reexamination of the injured before the trial court.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that said six month's period has already expired and trial has not been concluded till now.He further submits that at the instance of co-accused Vidya Gupta the complainant was recalled and statement of complainant has been recorded wherein he has stated that acid was thrown by his wife and he has also proved Ex.D-2 wherein the said fact is stated.He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 21/7/13 and he has completed more than two and half years in custody and Vidya Gupta has already been enlarged on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

Cited provisions: Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on I.A.No.5057/2018, third application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant / Mukesh Bhilala.Appellant assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/09/2015 passed in S.T. No. 112/2014 by Special Judge (POCSO), Dist.Guna, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to RI for three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and the appeal may take long time for its conclusion and the appellant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.List the case for final hearing in due course Certified copy as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2018.08.10 14:37:27 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.1163/2016 dated 17.11.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Kishore Kumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Rajan, residing at No.3/176, L.V.Nagar, Balakrishnapuram, New Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District- 601 201 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :i.T-4, Maduravaiyal Police Station, Crime No.1297 of 2014, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;ii.E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Crime No.512 of 2015 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code; andiii.Vellore North Police Station Crime No.376/2016 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.Further it is averred in the petition that on 20.09.2016, one Muthukumar, S/o.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation given by the petitioner has been disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, sixteen clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.The Detention Order dated 17.11.2016 passed in No.BCDFGISSSV No.1163 of 2016 by the first respondent against the detenu by name, Kishore Kumar, aged 24 years, S/o.

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner is in custody since 22.08.2014 and the new ground raised herein is recording of statement of prosecutrix on 12.02.2015 in which age as claimed by the prosecutrix to be 17 years, but as per case diary the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of school register is shown as 25.07.1996, according to which, the prosecutrix was 18 2 M.Cr.C.No.2405/2015 years and about one month on 15.08.2014 when the alleged crime was committed.

Cited provisions: Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-''7(i).That, the respondents may kindly be directed to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable in Department of Madhya Pradesh Police.(ii) That, Any other writ order and direction, which is found just, suitable and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to the petitioner.(ii-a) That, the order Annexure P/9 may kindly be set aside.'' (2) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that in the year 2017-18 an advertisement was issued by the respondents for appointment on the post of Police Constables.The said Special Recruitment Drive was for the members of primitive scheduled tribes.The petitioner also participated in the Special Recruitment Drive and by the merit list (Annexure P3), the petitioner was declared selected and accordingly, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, PHQ Bhopal, by letter dated 02/11/2018 (Annexure P5), directed the petitioner for his appearance before the Special Branch, PHQ Bhopal on 16/11/2018 for verification of his character.It is submitted that on 12/03/2017, Crime No.75/2017 was registered by Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna against the petitioner for offence u/S. 363 of IPC.Later on, charge-sheet for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Protection of 2 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short '' POCSO Act''] was filed.Thereafter, by letter dated 22/04/2019 (Annexure P9), the petitioner has been informed that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 08/03/2019 has held that the petitioner is unfit for his appointment on the post of Constable.Bunty by order dated 14/3/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.3046/2019 has held 5 as under:-

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code
The notice be made returnable within three weeks.This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 115/2015 registered at Police Station-Rajpura, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506-II of the IPC.Since this matter arose out of private complaint filed by complainant Sunita, wherein Judicial Magistrate first Class, Hatta, District Damoh took cognizance against this applicant and warrant of arrest had been issued against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during enquiry by police, it was found that after the incident, the complainant went to the police but she had not disclosed the fact in regard to outraging her modesty.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code
The first six items in the schedule relate to five letters and one telegram while the seventh item mentions other books, papers and documents relating to the appellants in the possession of the Registrar of this Court under Order, dated May 6, 1966, passed by this Court.JUDGMENT Raju, J.The above writ appeals, involve for consideration identical questions of law and, therefore, were heard together and are considered in common.When the writ petition No. 9354 of 1995 came up before the learned single Judge for orders regarding admission, the learned single Judge by his order dated 31-7-1995 dismissed the same.Before the learned single Judge, as could be seen from his order, only three grounds of challenge have been pursued and they are :"(a) The issue of a summons under Section 40 of the Act could be made or justified when some investigation or proceeding under the Act is pending and when there is no such investigating or proceeding, there is no authority to invoke Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, it is the bounden duty or necessity for the authority issuing the summons to inform the appellant as to the nature of investigation or proceeding, pending before him under the Act and the non-specification of the same in the summons vitiated the same.Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed.

Cited provisions: Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code
sh Heard on admission.a hy Heard on I.A.No.7520/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal ad Procedure filed on behalf of appellants Bhantu Ahirwar and M Dinesh.A perusal of the record reveals that appellants stand of convicted under Sections 323 read with section 34 of the IPC rt and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ou for a period of six months and fine in the sum of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.C Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the h appellants have been released on bail by the trial Court under ig section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till H 04.06.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellants be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellants, in the opinion of this Court, the appellants deserve to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 06.12.2018 and on all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) sh JUDGE e ad vai Pr a hy Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.05.16 03:58:41 -07'00' ad M of rt ou C h ig H

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.7.2019 in connection with Daspur P.S case no. 141 of 2019 dated 1.6.2019 under sections 341/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Smt. Shefali Gantait nee Shephali Gantait nee Mita Gantait & Ors.The application being CRM 6585 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code