Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri.The State of West Bengal Mr. Abir Ranjan Neogi ... for the petitioner.Mr. A.A.Siddiqui ... for the State.The court below has refused bail on September 13,2013 saying that the offence is under s.302 IPC.Advocate for the State not disputing the correctness of this submission has produced the case diary and submitted that a knife was recovered from the petitioner, the son of Tamuruddin.The case diary materials reveal the following facts.The deceased had an illicit relationship with the petitioner's mother.The petitioner and 2 his father (Tamuruddin) detected the deceased in Tamuruddin's bedroom with Tamuruddin's wife.Getting enraged they together started beating the deceased.The charge-sheet has been submitted.For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties ( one local) of Rs.10,000 each - all to the satisfaction of ACJM, Alipurduar.Certified xerox.(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sh ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri,J)

Cited provisions: Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:-Let the applicant- Salman Murgi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 140 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code
No.1/State.None for the complainant.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, "Special Act") This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Special Act being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Shivpuri rejecting the bail application.The appellant has been arrested on 18.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.357/2017 registered by Police Station Khaniyadhana District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 436, 435, 427, 323, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)

Cited provisions: Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of first respondent police for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against these petitioners.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.339 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage.He would also submit that the respondent police has deleted the name of the first and second petitioner from the First Information Report and they are ready with the charge sheet and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 20194.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However the first respondent police is directed to file final report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as against the other accused persons.28.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Sub Inspector of Police Surandai Police Station Tirunelveli2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code
A case has been registered against the petitioner and three other persons in Cr.No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 of I.P.C. by the respondent police.The first accused in the case was a contractor, who has taken contract for construction of a a ground level water tank in the Arunthathiyar Colony in Mittapatti Village in which the petitioner/second accused is an engineer, was assigned duty to supervise the day to day construction work.The third accused is the Extension Officer, fourth accused is the Block Development Officer.On 13.3.2004, the water tank busted causing death of two persons, grievous hurt to four persons besides simple injuries to 11 persons.It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the Block Development Officer, who succeeded the second petitioner has categorically stated in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that only A-1 and A-2 are the persons solely responsible for the irregular construction and acting in a negligent manner while constructing the ground level water tank which resulted in the occurrence and the Block Development Officer has not whispered a word about these petitioners.The leanred Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is absolutely no materials available on record through the statements recorded from the witnesses implicating the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 I.P.C."As far as A3 and A4 are concerned they are not at all directly involved and only they were present to see the mixing of cement and sand of construction work.In the above circumstance, the petition is liable for dismissal.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
It was alleged in the complaint that respondents are of criminal nature and they have terror in the locality.On 8/11/2012 when the complainant/applicant was on his tube-well, at that time the respondents came there alongwith stick, axe etc. and started abusing him and also called him by his caste's name and assaulted him.The non-applicant Jasrath had pulled his father from his hairs and threat to life was extended.offence under Sections 323, 294, 451, 506-B, 147, 148 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (in short "the Act").He has even not stated that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.Furthermore, even the caste certificate was not filed before the trial court and the applicant has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the copy of the caste certificate before the trial court, therefore, the trial court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.Heard learned counsel for the parties.So far as filing of the caste certificate before the Revisional Court or before this Court is concerned, the applicant has not given any explanation as to why the said document was not filed before the trial court.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 28/3/2017 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.1500171/2016 as well as the order dated 26/8/2016 passed by the JMFC, Bhind in Criminal Case No.2401080/2016 are affirmed.The M.Cr.G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
Presently, the petitioners have no access to the records and documents of the hotel under reference.(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Md.Mumtaz Khan, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code
He along with other accused is standing trial in the court of the Fifth Additional Special Judge, Madras City on four charges namely:1. 328thly, that you Accused 78 between November 1971 and November 1973 at Madras, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction accepted or obtained from Approver Kannappan gratification to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means the public servants, to wit, the officials of the Electrical Department, Central Accounts Department Cash Section, Revenue Department of the Corporation of Madras to do or forbear from doing official acts, to wit, prepare, process, negotiate and encash for disbursements bogus muster rolls relating to the employment of temporary labourers in the Electrical Department of the Corporation of Madras and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code.2. 329thly that you Accused-78 between August 1972 and November 1973, at Madras in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or other wise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the Annexure to Charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act-II) 1947, read with Section 109, I.P.C., and within my cognizance.3. 330thly, that you Accused-78 between November 1971 and November 1973, at the said place, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the annexure to charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II) 1947 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.Hence this appeal.It requires evidence for its determination.

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 172/93 convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 10.5.1993 Kalibai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was living in the house of her parents, ablazed herself.She was sent to the Hospital where a dying declaration of her was recorded.The investigating agency investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.The learned Trial Judge on going through the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.His defence is of maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed certain documents on record.The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.

Cited provisions: Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code
In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.9.2018 in connection with Asansol (North) P.S case no. 153 of 2018 dated 2.6.2018 under sections 498A/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act added secton 406 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Nikhit @ Nikhat Perween @ Rani ...... petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya Mr. Kunal Ganguly ...... for the petitioner Mr. Partha Pratim Das ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned 2 CJM, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event she fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel her bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 7845 of 2018 is disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
Sh/40 C.R.M. 5113 of 2013 In Re: Mahidur Rahaman ...Petitioner.Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8 th April, 2013 in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No.734/2012 dated 03-11-2012 under Sections 498A/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Kazi Mokhlasur Rahaman....For the petitioner.Within a year of marriage the victim was constrained to leave her matrimonial home.According to her, she was tortured for dowry of Rs.10,000/- physically and mentally.The petitioner and/or his family members allegedly caused her to miscarry.The de facto complainant has been rendered destitute.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
The petitioner made a complaint to the police alleging that, on the day of the incident, his son Mandeep had gone to his school at about 6:45 am but he did not come back CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8 home.Thereafter, the petitioner made inquiries from the friends of the deceased Mandeep regarding his whereabouts and one of the friends informed the petitioner, that he had seen Mandeep going on foot along with two other boys towards a nala.Subsequently, the petitioner reached the school of the deceased, wherein he found the police staff of PS: Chhawla, Delhi.The police showed the photograph of the deceased to the petitioner whom he identified as his son Mandeep, and he was further informed by the police about Mandeeps murder.The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board- II (JJB- II) and impugned judgment dated 23.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (Appellate Court) in Crl.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.05.2017 an FIR No. 153/2017 was registered at Police Station: Chhawala, South West Delhi under Sections 363, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a consequence of a statement made by the complainant, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner, herein) who is the father of the deceased, Mandeep in this case.Thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded in the police station and the afore-said FIR was registered.Subsequently, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and investigation was conducted and on 14.5.2018, after going through the material on record including the preliminary assessment reports as prepared by the experts, the charge-sheet and the annexed documents, the learned JJB- II passed an order, to treat the CCLs R and N as children and further held that the CCLs be tried before the JJB-II itself, as children.CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8The relevant para of the said impugned order dated 14.5.2018 is reproduced hereunder:Therefore, we decide the question of preliminary assessment in favour of CCLs R and N and against the prosecution.Let the CCLs be tried as children before this Board.However, we make it clear CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 2 of 8 that nothing expressed therein, shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case."P.C and the findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court on the basis of material on record, which are further upheld by the Appellate Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition.The pending applications are also dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
In such order, it has been observed that the petitioners have been able to show their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank.However, learned advocate representing the private respondents submits that without obtaining conversion of the status of the tank, the petitioners are attempting to raise construction thereon.-: 2 : -Ms. Nandy, learned advocate representing the official respondents submits that the second petitioner had previously submitted a written complaint against the private respondents on 30th June, 2013, whereupon Basirhat P. S. Case No. 909 dated 30th June, 2013 under Sections 447/323/379/354/427/504/506/34, Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation thereof has culminated in filing of charge-sheet on 4th January, 2014 against the private respondents under the aforesaid provisions of law.It has further been submitted by her that on 21st November, 2013, the second petitioner lodged a further complaint and in course of a probe into the allegations that were levelled, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Basirhat P.S. found that there was possibility of serious breach of peace in the locality and accordingly, prosecution vide Basirhat P. S. NCR No. 12069 dated 24th December, 2013 under Section 107, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the respondents.A recent complaint of the first petitioner received on 2nd January, 2014, she submits, revealed a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, a prayer has been submitted before the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Basirhat for necessary permission to investigate under Section 145 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to her, the allegation of police inaction is without any basis.Having regard to the aforesaid factual narrative, I do not see reason to hold that the police has been remiss in discharging its-: 3 : -However, since possibility of breach of peace has been found and the civil court at the interlocutory stage has ruled against the private respondents in respect of their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank, the police authorities shall ensure that so long the civil suit is not disposed of and the order of injunction subsists, the private respondents do not interfere with the petitioners' possession of the suit tank.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Dipankar Datta, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary perused.This first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.56/2019 registered at P.S. Rehli District Sagar (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 286, 338 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 30/12/2018 at about 2.00 pm, in the field of applicant Badan, situated at village Baleh under the jurisdiction of Police Station Rehli, Deepu aged about 10 years has found an object looking like sweet item (laddu) which he has taken in his hand which was exploded, by which Deepu was injured badly, his four fingers have been detached from the palm of the hand.On receiving such information, complainant, father of injured Deepu, reached on the spot and lodged the report.During the course of investigation, statements of injured Deepu and other villagers have been recorded.Injured Deepu has remained admitted in the hospital at Sagar and Bhopal.He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04/02/2019 and trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that incidence alleged to be happened in the filed of applicant Badan.It is alleged that round shaped article i.e. laddu was a bomb, which is usually made for the purpose of killing wild boar, was explode in the hand of injured Deepu, as to how inured Deepu has reached there is not clear from the evidence available on record.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant and the period of custody of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 20/02/2019 21:59:13

Cited provisions: Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code