Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
It would appear that both the complainant and the petitioner were friends belonging to reasonably affluent families, and in the aftermath of a Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7 get-together at the house of the complainant, the complainant had lodged the said FIR alleging theft of money and certain articles from his house by the petitioner / accused.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7The Investigating Officer is present in Court.The matter is stated to be under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.237/2014 dated 15.06.2014, registered under Sections 380 IPC at police station Greater Kailash, at the instance of second respondent, Sh.The said Settlement Deed has also been annexed to this petition.Issue notice.The petitioner undertakes to this Court to deposit the aforesaid costs within the time granted and file the proof of the same.He has been explained the consequences of breach of this undertaking by his counsel.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge JULY 31, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
The petitioner is in custody for 177 days.The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client is standing on the same footing with one of the co-accused, who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in connection with CRM No. 616 of 2017 on 13.02.2017 and the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed on parity.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further 2 condition that after release he shall report to the investigating officer of the case thrice in every week until further orders.The application for bail is thus disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
In the complaint it was stated that on 14.9.2001 Saroj, daughter of complainant Nihal Singh died.When his nephew Mangal Singh went to meet Saroj he learnt that she had been killed by her husband Ishwar Singh, brother in law-Bhim Singh and father in law-Lok Ram.Kerosene oil was poured on her and then she was set on fire.Police registered a case relating to offences punishable under Section 304(B) and 498 (A) read with Section 34 IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid report an investigation was started.Stand of the appellant, Lok Ram was that he was serving at a school at the alleged time of incident.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1204 of 2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellant who has been directed to be impleaded as an accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.Background facts are as under:Respondent No.1-Nihal Singh's daughters Saroj and Kanta were married to Ishwar Singh and Bhim Singh, both sons of Appellant, Lok Ram.On 2.9.2001, respondent Nihal Singh filed a complaint at the Police Station, Fatehabad (Haryana), alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and moved an application for seizure of articles purported to have been given as dowry.Statements of various persons were recorded.During trial, complainant Nihal Singh moved an application under Section 319 of the Code.By order dated 6.9.2002 learned Sessions Judge rejected the application.On 4.12.2002, trial court convicted Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh and their mother for commission of offences punishable under Section 304 (B) IPC and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Against the order dated 6.9.2002 a revision petition was filed.The High Court by the impugned judgment directed the trial court to proceed against the appellant by summoning him.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the true scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has not been kept in view.The trial had continued to a considerable extent.However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code
Item No. 68And In the matter of: Jahur Khan & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kasishwar Ghoshal For the Petitioners Mrs. Sujata Das For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 05 of 2013 dated 19.1.2013 under sections 376/201/212/313/315/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have also considered the case diary, the statement of the victim as well as the medical reports.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

Cited provisions: Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
The facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi.He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work.He died on 7th March 1983 under mysterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmed aged about 19 years were found floating in river Yamuna.On 20th December, 1983, the petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent, who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. shock absorbers, tools and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased of his own house at 1074, First Floor, Kishanganj (Teliwara).As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the Police.The respondent moved an application dt. 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft.He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial protracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account.The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.The learned Magistrate vide order dt. 28th November, 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant - Smt. Anisa Begum on her furnishing Super digamma in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Session.It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dt. 8th February, 1985 set aside the aforesaid order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent - Masoom Ali.Hence, this revision petition by the complainant - petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge.The controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass, the crucial question for determination being whether the custody of the seized articles be entrusted to the complainant-petitioner or the accused-respondent pending conclusion of the trial.Revision allowed.

Cited provisions: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code
Certified copy, as per Rules.Lokayukta has argued before this Court that there is sufficient material against the applicants.He has read out the statement available in the case diary and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.They are attending the Office everyday and recently they have been implicated in the crime.

Cited provisions: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
CRM No. 793 of 2011 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.1.2011 in connection with Sutahata P.S. Case No. 278/2010 dated 18.10.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/ 333/379/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and 9(b) of the Indian ExclusiveAnd In the matter of : Shyamal Das - petitioner Mr. Asish Dey ... for the petitioner The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on instruction he is not pressing this application.The application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.(J. N. Patel, Chief Justice.) (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code
This Petition is for quashing and setting aside the FIRregistered against the Petitioners at Kalwa Police Station being C.R.No.I-197 of 2018 for a offence punishable under sections 326, 506of IPC.The Respondent No.2 - original complainant as well asthe aggrieved person viz. Ashad Zakir Hussain Mullaji have filedseparate affidavit dated 26th July 2018 thereby giving no objection toset aside the crime bearing C.R. No.On specific querymade by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit onher own free will, without there being any pressure or undueinfluence.She has further confirmed that she has no objection forquashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Petitioners.We have carefully gone through the FIR on the basis ofwhich offence has been registered against the present Applicantsunder sections 326, 504 of IPC.Perusal of the complaint wouldreveal a verbal altercation took place between the complainant onone hand and the accused persons and this altercation culminatedinto an assault with the aid of wooden bamboo which was lying at thespot.The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputesbetween themselves and buried the hatchet.Not only this, they saythat since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighboursand that was the reason for restoring friendly ties.

Cited provisions: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
323/341/506/387/500/34 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi vide detailed order of 30th August, 2012, trial court had summoned respondents herein for the offence under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC.Above-said order was challenged by way of a revision petition by the respondents herein.Revisional court vide impugned order of 17th January, 2013 has upset the above-said trial court's order and has discharged respondents herein by holding that allegations made by petitioner-complainant appear to be improbable and motivated.The initial version given in petitioner's complaint of 10th Crl.M.C.No.1198/2013 Page 1 September, 2007 to the concerned DCP reads as under:-The persons named Rajpal, Kamla, Sukhbir are known to the applicant.All of them wrongfully at 2.00 p.m. restrained the applicant in a way near 13-Block Trilok Puri which falls within area of PS Mayur Vihar and made illegal demand of Rs.3 lacs.After refusal by the same they used filthy languages and started beatings.Rajpal and Sukhbir showed knife and all of them threatened either withdraw the case and fulfill their demands of Rs.3 lacs otherwise they will kill the applicant and his family.They also threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family in any case.Public persons collecting there saved the applicant.

Cited provisions: Section 341 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
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan, J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station & Crime No.Section of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station in Crime No.283/2013 for offence under Section 392 IPC.Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested.

Cited provisions: Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court No. 2, Etawah rejecting the bail application of appellants, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 2256 of 2019 (Bhola @ Rohit Kumar and another Vs.State) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.As per FIR version, no specific role has been assigned and only presence of appellants is shown on the spot.The main role of assault has been assigned to one Vipin Prakash and the same fact is also getting support by the statements of injured witnesses.On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application.The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.Let the appellants Bhole @ Rohit Kumar and Abhishek involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.The appellants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

Cited provisions: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that highly belated FIR delayed by two months was got registered by mother of the girl and that too after recovery of the girl against the applicant and five other persons.On 04.01.2019, the girl was returned back and on the same day, this FIR came into existence.There is no whisper in the FIR regarding sexual assault upon her.Though, the victim was present at the time.The FIR was registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC.The allegation made in the FIR is that she went along with the applicant and remained there for considerable period of time.During this period, she has never tried to come out from the clutches of the applicant or raise any alarm.The conduct of the girl clearly shows that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant.The age of the girl is 17+ years.She is a major girl.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Harinarayan, involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

Cited provisions: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
However, the complainant's case was that certain examination was to be held for recruitment of some categories of employees for the bank and the two accused persons settled with him that they would get his nephew appointed provided he paid them Rs. 10,000/- of which Rs. 2,000/- were paid by way of first instalment.The examination was held.The revision, fails.A large number of candidates were called for interview and after a long time first 19 persons were appointed as managers and then 42 others on some other posts but the complainant's nephew did not figure in the lists.It was further alleged that the accused persons had tampered with the papers, mark-sheets and other examination records in fur- therance of their conspiracy to earn money from the candidates.

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code
The criminal application is allowed.The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant by the the learned Special Judge-4 under the POCSO Act, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 256/2016 on 15.11.2018 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 11 punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 354-D(I) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal.The applicant to mark his presence at Police Station, Warud, Dist.The applicant shall remain personally present before this Court at the time of final hearing of this appeal.With this, the criminal application is allowed and disposed of.JUDGEDiwale ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 5634 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.07.2019 in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 893 of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 under Sections 417/376/406/504/506/323/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Suman Samaddar ..... petitioner Mr. Sarayati Datta ...for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not the principal accused who is presently in custody.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, 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 he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code
They were having lathies, stone and iron patti (Dau).Both the parties heard.This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime Number 111/2018 registered at Police Station Nalchha, District Dhar for an offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506 (2), 324, 326 and 34 of IPC and 25-B of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants argued before this court that the complainant Rajaram has lodged a report on 28-06-2018 at about 05:30 PM that the applicants came to his house and have assaulted the complainant.On the basis of the report lodged by Rajaram a criminal case was registered at Crime No.111/18 for an offence under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.The applicants were released on bail as all the offences were bailable.Later on, Section 326 has been added and now the applicants are apprehending their arrest.It has been argued that injuries are minor in nature and based upon the opinion of the District Prosecution Office as well as medical report section 326 has been added and they are apprehending their arrest.It has been stated fight took place between the two parties and the present applicants 2 MCRC No.1774/2019 have also lodged a report against the complainant and the same is registered as Crime No. 112/2018, which was also lodged on the same day with the same police station.

Cited provisions: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code