Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State informed that notice to the respondent no.2/victim has already been served.None appeared for the victim.Heard on and I.A.No.14149/2019 application filed by appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 354-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulations.Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties, appellant jail sentence has already be suspended by the trial Court under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. and that period is further extended by this Court.The appellant did not misused the liberty.Appellant was on bail during the trial.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.List this case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2019.09.17 11:57:35 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.5.The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.6.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.7.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.8.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.9.The Executive Engineer, Highway Department, Madurai, Madurai District.10.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Limit, Madurai City, Madurai.11.The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai District.12.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai District.13.The Inspector of Police, Puthur Police Station, Madurai District.14.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai District.2. Heard Ms.R.Fathima, appeared in person, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 10 and 12 to 15 andMr.We also note that the petitioner informs thatshe is moving the present writ petition ?as per the guidelines and footstepsof the senior citizen and Social Activist - Traffic Dr.Ramaswamy?.We wouldseriously doubt as to whether a public interest litigant, like the petitionerherein, can move a Writ Petition at the behest of others.The petitioner hasalso informed commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code,which really may not be attracted in this case and some of which requiresanction for prosecution.4.This Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Cited provisions: Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code
The application is hereby allowed.Applicant No.1 Narayan Dhanraj Ghuge and applicant No.2 Mahadev @ Mahadu s/o Fulchand Ghuge in Bail Application No.1210 of 2020 and applicant No.1 Vyankati s/o Manikrao Ghuge and applicant No.2 Rahul Sudam Ghuge in Bail Application No. 1224 of 2020 in connection with Crime No. 190 of 2020 registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307,::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 ::: (4) BA-1210_ 2020.odt 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 304, 427 of the Indian Penal Code be released on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount, on the following conditions :::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week on every Sunday between 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. till fling of the charge-sheet.The applications are accordingly disposed of.(V.K. JADHAV, J.) VD_Dhirde::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code
Appellant-Satish, has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 10.3.2017, rendered by Special Judge Shajapur, in S.T. No.38/2017, whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined to the appellant.Allegedly, prosecurtrix aged about 15 years was enticed away by one Prakash.Further allegation is that she was taken by Prakash to Borgaon and in Borgaon the present appellant helped Prakash in procuring rental premises for his stay.The further allegation is that the prosecutrix was also subjected to rape by Prakash.It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that only allegation against the appellant happens to be that he helped and facilitated Prakash in procuring rental premises for stay and that the same prima facie cannot amount to an offence under the aforesaid provisions of law.Though the prayer for bail is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the nature of the allegation so also the quality of evidence to support the same, it would be appropriate to admit the appellant on bail.Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his regular presence during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge M.Jilla.

Cited provisions: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
C.C. as per rules.(SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE pn Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 2018.06.28 11:00:10 +05'30'Heard learned counsel for the applicants finally at motion stage.The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the complaint Case No.59/2018 pending before the J.M.F.C. Jatara District Tikamgarh.The documents as indicated by the applicants show that the allegation against the applicants with regard to cruelty was occurred at the place of Mauranipur, Jhansi (U.P.) and Jaipur (Rajasthan) and complaint was lodged before the Court of J.M.F.C. Jatara, District Tikamgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 294 and 506-B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The main plea of the applicants is that the J.M.F.C. Jatara, District Tikamgarh has no jurisdiction to try the complaint against the applicants for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case in which an interference is required by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Consequently, the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.However, the respondent would be at liberty to file the complaint against the applicants before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor.Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6381/2017, an application on behalf of the appellant - Harikishan Pal for staying the effect of conviction.It is submitted that the appellant has been selected in the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission and if the effect of conviction is not stayed, then his entire career shall be spoiled.2 CRA 798/2016 Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant was having close relationship with Dharmendra Sharma @ D.K. Singh and, therefore, he is equally responsible for the offence.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Considering the role attributed to the appellant in the commission of alleged crime so also the fact that his career is at stake, it would be appropriate to suspend the effect of conviction imposed against him.Accordingly, the prayer for staying the effect of conviction is allowed.The conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences shall remain stayed till pendency of this appeal.I.A. No.6381/2017 stands accordingly disposed of.C.C. as per Rules.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
Arguments heard upon both the applications filed on 13.03.2020 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket, both are confined in custody since 27.02.2020 in connection with the crime No.20/2020 registered at Police Station Talaiya, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-2, 366A, 368 of IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act.It appears from the impugned order that the prosecturix came into contact with the son of both applicants and their son Atul Kumar Saket called her through video calling.When she reached Rewa, Atul Kumar Saket received her and took her in the house.The allegation against the present applicants is that they gave the shelter to the prosecutrix in their house because they are the parents of main accused Atul Kumar Saket.It is also alleged that Kamla Saket gave the threat to the prosecutrix for not disclosing the incident to anybody at Bhopal.It is directed that the applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket be released on bail upon their furnishing bail bond worth Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each and personal bond of the same amount to the Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:50 2 MCRC-11925-2020 satisfaction of the trial Court.A t the time of releasing the applicants from custody, all the instructions issued by the Government related to COVID-19 shall also be followed by the concerned authority.Accordingly, both M.Cr.C. stand allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE shahina Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:50

Cited provisions: Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.19726/2013, an application for staying the proceedings pending before the trial Court.The applicants have moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in criminal revision No.277/2012, whereby an order under section 398 of the Cr.P.C. was passed for re-enquiry in the complaint.A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for information.

Cited provisions: Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on I.A.No.6560/2013 and I.A.No.6561/2013 which are the applications filed under Sections 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compromise the matter with a prayer to accept the same and decide the case in the light of the compromise.Matter was referred to the Principal Registrar of this Court directing him to verify the factum of compromise between the parties.Verification report dated 16.10.2014 has been perused.It has been found by the Principal Registrar of this court during verification that parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force for the offence registered at Crime No.216/2012 at Police Station Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 3662 Mcrc.5404.2013 Deepak Rathore Vs.State of M.P. and another II, 34 of IPC On perusal of case-diary, it is clear that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are not of such nature which affects the society adversely.

Cited provisions: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Arguments heard.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in connection with crime no.280/2015, registered at Police Station Rampayli, District Balaghat, against them for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution allegations are that the applicants are son and father and they are neighbour of deceased Sursen in village Gosai Tola.The applicants used to torture and harass the deceased by saying that he had played witchcraft upon them and their family members as a result of which they fell ill.It is also submitted by him that the applicants are permanent residents of village Gosai Tola and they do not have any criminal antecedents.It is also submitted by him that the police seized a suicide note alleged to be written by the deceased in which he had not stated that on account of torture by the applicants he was forced to commit suicide.Upon these submissions learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer on the ground of suicide note written by the deceased.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)

Cited provisions: Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
B/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Amirul Sk. & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas .. for the Petitioners Mr. Arabinda Manna .. For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 132 of 2016 dated 2.8.2016 under Sections 447/324/354B/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

Cited provisions: Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.387/2019 registered by Police Station Gadarwara District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 511 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 8- 9/4/2019, applicant with other co accused persons was found to attempt theft in the shop of complainant Chain Singh Rajput situated at village Kaudiya near Barheta Road.It is submitted that applicant Chain Singh Rajput got information on telephone then he reached the spot and got hold of the applicant-Golu Dhanak and co-accused Kishan Dhanak.They were taken to the police station, where on interrogation they admitted that they were trying to open locks and shutter of the shop.It is also alleged that some iron rods were also recovered from their possession.Applicants were taken into custody and abovementioned offence was registered against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime and has falsely been implicated in the case.He is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application.There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 28/06/2019 01:52:08 2 MCRC-20877-2019 opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and the period of detention of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant 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.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 28/06/2019 01:52:08

Cited provisions: Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code
-: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Jitendra s/o Budan Mankar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 09.08.2019 :-Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant - Jitendra.Shri Anil Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.200/2019 registered at Police Station Anjad, District Barwani for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.As per the prosecution story, deceased Ranubai, the wife of the applicant, married for a year with applicant committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this matter.He points out that Merg was first recorded 11 days after the death and this delay has not been explained by the prosecution.In the Merg statement, the harassment has been shown to be meted out to the deceased by making allegation against her character by the applicant.Learned counsel for the State was also heard.Perused the case-diary.After duly considering the documents placed in the charge-sheet, this application is being allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular-: 2 :- Misc.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Anil Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, Kumar postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=753b65d225a9746e99a75a 441cdc964aa7a158d438793e7f3246 Sharma 7b355745f3ae, cn=Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.08.09 17:29:37 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary is available.This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22.12.2017 in connection with Crime No. 278/2017 registered by Police Station Bhauti, District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 342, 326A, 120-B of IPC and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant.The only allegation against the applicant is that he provided an accommodation to the co-accused and the prosecutrix at Bombay.Certified copy as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code
Mr. Aniket Mitra appears for the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited.The allegations are of theft of electricity.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that after assessment, the total amount of energy said to have been pilfered comes to about Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand only).However, in this case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has very fairly volunteered to pay the money to the said company as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.The Petitioner will be obliged to pay that amount within fifteen days from the date the Electricity Distribution Company demands such sum in writing.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application for anticipatory bail stands allowed.(TAPEN SEN, J.) (INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case crime no. 200/2019, under Sections- 323, 324, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC, P.S.- Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli pending before the concerned court below as well as summoning order dated 30.10.2019 and all consequential proceedings of the aforesaid case."1. Heard Mr. Atul Pandey and Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 01/2019 dated 27th September, 2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs.Ompal), Shadik Ali & Another), under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Adarsh Mandi, District-Shamli, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shamli.The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 30.10.2019 and all consequential proceedings of the aforesaid case.It is correct that in earlier application filed by the applicant, Sections 452 and 354 IPC were not there, but the fact remains that incident and case is the case.When application of applicant for quashing of proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC of aforesaid case was dismissed, the second application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of same proceedings would not be maintainable under shield that two more sections have been added.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code