Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for respondent no.5-State.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10/5/11 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.296/10, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), and respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been acquitted of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/3/09, respondent no.1 Dhanveer Singh, dishonestly induced complainant Deewan Singh Rajput to deliver his Indo Farm Tractor on rental of Rs.12000/- per month to respondent no.2 Israel personating him to be Mohan and respondent no.2 Israel, obtained the said Tractor and they handed over the same to respondent nos.3 and 4 viz. Mausam and Aslam, who in turn sold it to one Haji Ayub.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.The Tractor in dispute bearing Registration No. MP-04- LA-9663, Engine No.241064C and Chasis No. E-M-S-35001094EP, was in the ownership of complainant Diwan Singh.Diwan Singh had deposed that the Tractor was given on rent to one Mohan before his wife, who knew him, but his wife has not been examined to corroborate the allegation of impersonation.Signatures of respondent no.2 as Mohan Singh on rent note (Ex.P/5, were not proved by the prosecution.Registration number of Tractor, Engine and Chasis Numbers, as mentioned in the rent note /agreement, were altogether different from those of tractor in dispute.Vishal Singh (PW3) deposed in his evidence that the factum of impersonation had come into the knowledge of complainant within a month from the date of incident, but even then First Information Report, was not lodged and the same was lodged after 7 to 8 months without any explanation for delay.It was also admitted by the complainant that he was not able to regularly pay the installments of loan given by the Bank for purchasing the said Tractor and was under an impression that the same was seized by the Bank and had also contacted the Bank for verifying the same.On the aforesaid premises, the trial Court discarded the case of the prosecution.The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code
CRM 5066 of 2017 Court No.8 Item No. 144 (ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30.05.2017 in connection with New snandy & akdas Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017 dated 05.03.2017 (Sessions Special POCSO Act Case No. 58 of 2017) for committing offence punishable under Sections 354B/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act.Item No. 144And In the matter of : Surojit Mahanta @ Buro & Ors.......Petitioners Mr. Debasis Kar, Advocate ....For the Petitioner Mrs. Manasi Ray, Advocate .......For the State The petitioners are seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 354B/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act.Learned Counsel for the State produced the case diary and opposed the prayer for bail.Joy Majumdar, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court under POCSO Act, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, subject to condition that the said petitioners shall appear before the trial court on every day of hearing and in the event they fail to appear before the trial court as aforesaid, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel 2 their order of bail automatically without reference to this court and they shall not intimidate witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Shivakant Prasad, J) (Joymalya Bagchi, J)

Cited provisions: Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on this first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in jail since 08/11/2019 in connection with Crime No.798/2019, registered at Police Station-Chola Mandir, District- Bhopal for the offence under Sections 342, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC The case of the prosecution, in short, is that prosecutrix studied in Class X. On 21.10.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. when she was alone in her house, the applicant came there and caught hold of her hand and took her at his house and committed rape upon her.On 07.11.2019 the prosecutrix narrated the whole story to her mother.The prosecutrix is a mentally retarded and she is suffering from 90% disability.Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.The applicant and and his family members lived adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix and they had inimical relations and quarrels on various occasions therefore the family of the prosecutrix had enmity against the applicant and his family.Therefore, parents of the prosecutrix lodged a false report and on that basis the applicant has been implicated in the case.Learned senior counsel also pointed out so many discrepancies in the investigation.Therefore, it has been prayed to enlarge the applicant on bail.2 MCRC-53219-2019 On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and submits that as per the document available on record the prosecutrix is suffering from 90% severe profound mental retardation and there are strong evidence available against the applicant which leads to dismissal of the application.Having heard learned counsel for the parties.On perusal of the the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she categorically stated about the act of the applicant and that the prosecutrix is suffering from 90% disability, this Court does not find it to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant BHAGWAT S INGH RAGHUVANS HI, is dismissed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2020.06.17 16:46:46 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code
None for the parties.(Judgment) (Delivered on 22nd of July , 2014) This Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.265/1993 acquitting the respondents hereinafter reffered as 'accused' from the charges punishable under Section 494/109 of IPC.2. To appreciate the say of the appellant, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that marriage of complainant Indirabai was performed with accused Prabhakar as per Hindu rites and rituals 20 years ago.However, as no issue was born, the behavior of the accused and his family was changed and they tortured the 2 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998 complainant and pressurized her to give her consent for second marriage.After threatening to set on fire, under due pressure, they got signature of the complainant and her brother on stamp.The complainant filed a complaint alleging that she was a legally wedded wife of accused Prabhakar and as he performed second marriage and other family members parents of accused, another accused Nos. 3 & 4 Lalano Bai and Hareramjee, both died during pendency of this appeal, gave him assistant, they were liable for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC.2 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 494/109 the Indian Penal Code against the accused who abjured their guilt; therefore, they were put to trial.The prosecution has examined Indira Bai (PW/1), Maroti (PW/2), Ramji (PW/3) and exhibited one document to prove his case.During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the evidence put up against them and pleaded their innocence.Defence examined Ramesh (DW/1) and Raghunath (DW/2).Learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, this appeal by the complainant Indira Bai.As per appeal memo, it is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal, contrary and is erroneous both of facts and in law.It is further mentioned that the learned trial court erred in not appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record 3 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998 which clearly corroborated the prosecution story, hence, judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court be set aside and the accused may be convicted.3 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998

Cited provisions: Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code
P.C filed by the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 342/2019 registered at Police Station- Vijay Nagar, Indore District - Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 46834 of IPC.In such circumstances, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned GA opposes the bail application and submits that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.Case diary perused.Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his/her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his/her appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.CC as per rules.(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2020.01.30 16:51:48 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission.The applicant has challenged the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.375/11 by which the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(1) and 506-II of IPC were framed.No charges of such offences could be framed against the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.It is possible that due to some relation of the prosecutrix with some other person, child could born but the allegations of rape etc were made by the prosecutrix against the applicant and at present, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be examined, therefore, order passed by the trial Court seems to be legal.For framing of charges, it would be clear that if the evidence is considered as it is, then conviction must be directed for some offences and if it is so then the charges for such offences shall be framed.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Cited provisions: Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
By a common order, M.Cr.C. Nos. 24122/2017 and 27827/2017 sh moved by applicants Smt. Satya Devi and Smt. Rajkumari Kewat for e anticipatory bail and M.Cr.C. No. 21164/2017 moved by principal ad accused Pushpraj Patel for grant of regular bail have been disposed of.Pr The applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to a hy applicants Satya Devi @ Gudiya Patel, Smt. Rajkumari Kewat and Bhairo Prasad Patel herein who are apprehending their arrests in ad connection with Crime No. 294/2017 for the offences punishable M under sections 363, 366, 376, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at of Police Station-Gadh, District-Rewa and the application under Section rt 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for grant of ou regular bail on behalf of applicant Pushpraj Patel.The allegation against applicant Pushpraj Patel is that he has C abducted and raped the minor daughter of the complainant.h Learned counsel for the State has submitted that age of the ig prosecutrix is about 15 years and 8 months.On 7/09/2017, the mother of the prosecutrix registers an F.I.R. under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. stating that she suspects that her daughter has been kidnapped by applicant Pushpraj Patel.The prosecutrix was recovered on 10/09/2017 and on 11/09/2017, her 161 statement has been recorded.She says that applicants Satya Devi, Rajkumari Kewat and Bhairo Prasad had assisted the main accused Pushpraj Patel in the case.How they have assisted the main accused is not spelt out correctly and the allegation to that effect is omnibus.The M.L.C. is inconclusive and the F.S.L. report shows that there were no human sperm in the vaginal slide taken from the prosecutrix and her clothes.sh The charge-sheet has been filed.e Under the circumstances, the application M.Cr.C. No. ad 21164/2017 filed on behalf of applicant Pushpraj Patel is allowed Pr and he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court hy and M.Cr.The applicants shall C join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the police.h C.C. as per rules.ig H (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE vy Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR VAIBHAV DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5d417c5e2cdb0fdfcea7271b91298 YEOLEKAR 9fffd7a8d3dbf63db4ebdc42355e64abf7c, 2.5.4.45=0321007752E925403D6A9CA64C0 AF28688DDCEFD19008152D550BB9E37BE4 DAFFE2DB9, cn=VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2018.01.17 17:23:20 +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; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
This is first bail application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 329/2020 registered at Police Station Simariya, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections, 354, 354 (D), 323, 294, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.Prosecution case is that the applicant's son made sexual assault on the prosecutrix and thereafter, applicants made quarrel with the parents of the prosecurtix and abused them and beaten and threatened to kill them.If the prosecution story considered as it, against them, hardly an offence under Section 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC would be made out which are bailable offence.In the circumstance, there are entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned P.L., opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.If they failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.The applicant/accused are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2020.08.28 03:45:16 -07'00'

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
1 12-14 skp lowed) C.R.M. No. 11659 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1st September, 2014 in connection with Asansol(W) P.S. Case No. 168/2013 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections 325/354A/120B/397/376/211/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Laltu Dawn & Ors. ... Petitioners.Mr. Himangshu De, Mr. Arup Krishna Das ... for the petitioners.Mr. Subrata Roy ... for the State.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners, namely, (1) Laltu Dawn, (2) Mintu Dawn and (3) Raju Dawn, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- each, with one surety of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is thus disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/07/2019 11:52:57Petitioner convicted u/S 302 r/W 34 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC has been sentenced for life imprisonment by judgment dated 31.03.2005 in S.T. No. 458/1998 by Sessions Judge, Indore.vthou dkjkokl ls naMkfn"V ,asls cafn;ksa dks] tks vthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 05 o"kZ rd dh ltk ls nafMr gksa rFkk ftUgksus fopkjk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, 15 o"kZ dk naMkns'k Hkwxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefyr djrs gw, naMkns'k ds 21 o"kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk,xkAs Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/07/2019 11:52:57 2 WP-4968-2019 Learned State counsel prays for a day's time to seek instructions.Let a copy of this order be provided to Shri Vijaywarigya for official use and onwards transmission.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon'ble Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRR 2148 of 2014 With CRAN 2861 of 2015 Dr. Amitabha Mukherjee Vs.Indrajit Chatterjee, J:- The report as placed by Mr. Basu, learned counsel representing the State is taken on record.From the said report, it appears that the defacto complainant Tamali Mukherjee could not be traced out at Flat No.Let the report be taken on record.On behalf of the State, Mr. Basu is present.There is no need to keep the matter pending only for appearance of the opposite party No.2 who in spite of best effort of this court could not be traced out.The report of S.I Pradip kumar Sinha of Baguihati P.S dated 27.11.2016 as forwarded by the officer-in-charge of the said police station be taken on record.On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mukherjee is present.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case No.2736 of 2012 arising out of Beleghata Police Station Case No.272 dated 28th August, 2012 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas.Leave is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to amend the cause title of the petition.The case so far relevant for the purpose of assessing this revisional application can be stated in brief, thus: that one FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 wherein she candidly claims that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party.From 2002, they started residing as husband and wife in a rented house.There are other allegations against the husband.She further stated in the complaint that she and her husband shifted from Baguiati to Beleghata and thereafter she came to know that one Mamata Bhatt who is now merely a chamber attendant of the present petitioner doctor living as husband and wife.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in crime No.304 of 2015 on the file of the 1 st respondent as against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 149, 420, 468, 447 and 471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner an others.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 and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.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.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the petitioner is permitted to submit all the documents executed by her after the registration of the FIR before the 1st respondent and on the receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the same complete the investigation and file a 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1867 of 20109 final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.16.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul To1.The Inspector of Police, Siruganoor Police Station, Trichy2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1867 of 20109 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Cited provisions: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
This order shall decide W.A. No.875 of 2011, W.A. 903 of 2011, W.A. No. 915 of 2011 and R.P. No. 427 of 2011 in which a common question of law is involved for the consideration of this Court.For the convenience facts are taken from W.A.No. 875 of 2011 (Prakash Singh Thakur vs. State of M.P. and others).All the appellants/petitioners are suffering sentence for life under Section 302 IPC alongwith some more provisions under the IPC.It is also not in dispute that these persons have not completed actual sentence of 14 years and before completion of the aforesaid period, they have applied for their premature release under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Rule 4 of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") have been amended vide notification dated 24.3.2008 while the applicants were convicted prior to it, so the earlier rule as was in statute book prior to 24.3.2008 shall be applicable in the matter of all the appellants and they are entitled to release on probation even without completion of actual sentence of 14 years.W.A.No. 875 of 2011 Prakash Singh Thakur State of M.P. & others.In the cases at hand, the conditions have beenAs petitioner has remained in jail for more than 13 years, Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from today."The Division Bench had also observed that where prayer for bail has been rejected, the convicts have been released on licence.To appreciate the said submission, we have carefully perusaed both the decisions.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
1 27.7.2018 39 Allowed md.CRM No. 5226 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.07.2018 in connection with Lalgola Police Station Case No. 143 of 2018 dated 12.03.2018 under Sections 341/323/307/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Corresponding to G.R. case no.779 of 2018).And In Re:-Saheb Sk.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 petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Cited provisions: Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code