Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
This application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.154/2017 registered at Police Station Nai Garhi, District Rewa for offences punishable under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The arrest of the applicant is required in the aforesaid case allegedly for assaulting and causing hurt to the complainant for not giving him Rs.200/- for purchasing liquor.Vide order dated 11.10.2017, this Court had requested the learned counsel for the State to call for the MLC as the same was not in the case diary.Today also the MLC is not there in the case diary.Except the offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. all other offences are bailable in nature.The offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. deals with voluntarily causing hurt for the purpose of extortion.Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2017.10.27 03:19:54

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
ALLOWED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28th February, 2017 in connection with Udaynarayanpur Police Station Case No. 93 of 2015 dated 23.7.2015 under Sections 341/323/ 326/307/354B/ 379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Prashanta Bag & Others ... Petitioners MSk.Samim Akhter For the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Manoaranjan Mahato .. For the State Mr. Arijit Ganguly .. for the de-facto complainant.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.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 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
The agreement requiredthe appellant to complete all the accounts and prohibitedfrom borrowing money in the name of the firm.It requiredhim "to use his best efforts to realise all pending bills,security deposits, claims etc." as well as to dispose of theplant, machinery etc. The agreement also provided thatpartners, other than the appellant, would procure, if theneed arose, further finance to the maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- but that if a sum in excess of this amount wasrequired, that excess was to be brought in by all thepartners including the appellant "individually pro rata inproportion to their shares of profits and losses in thefirm".Clause 8 of this agreement permitted the appellantto withdraw on his own account a sum of Rs. 10,000 "nosooner he is able to realise any of the pending claims ofbills of the firm or security deposits".We have dealt withthis agreement at some length because it will be relevant toconsider these matters in the context of the argument of Mr.Rana to the effect that the appellant as working partner wasentitled to utilise the realizations made by him forcarrying on the work of the firm.According to the complainant the appellant committed mis-appropriation to the tune of Rs. 8,905/- consisting of thefollow-ing six items Rs. 2,871/-Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedFebruary 1, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal AppealNo.O.P. Rana, for the appellant.P. K. Chatterjee and B. R. G. K. Achar, for therespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMudholkar J. In this appeal from the judgment of the BombayHigh Court the question which falls to be considered iswhether a partner can be convicted under s. 409, IndianPenal Code on the ground that his failure to account formonies belonging to the firm in which he was a partneramounts to criminal breach of trust.The admitted facts are briefly theseThe firm, Messrs. Bharat Silp Pramandal, which was formedfor carrying on the business of building construction,originally conisted of eight partners and the appellant wasits working partner.But on February 6, 1957 three of the partners retiredand the business was continued by the remaining fivepartners.The trial court acquitted the appellant with respect to thelast two items but convicted him in respect of the firstfour items.The appellant admits that he realised these four items buthe says that he did so in his capacity as partner and heutilised them for the business of the partnership.Surendra Mohan Das(1).in the result we allow the appeal and set aside theconviction and sentence passed against him.Appeal allowed.

Cited provisions: Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
I. Criminal application is hereby allowed.In the event of their arrest, in connection with crime No. 0128/2017 registered at Sengaon police station, District Hingoli,::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 ::: cran3360.17 -4- the applicants (1) Asaram Laxman Wakale and (2) Sitaram Laxman Wakele be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount by each of them, on the following conditions:-::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::b) The applicants shall not enter in village Dongargaon till filing of charge sheet.Criminal application is disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::

Cited provisions: Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
And In re.: Upen Biswas. .......... Petitioner Mrs. Jeenia Rudra....... for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta..... for the State Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for 46 days.We have gone through the case diary, more particularly through the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC.Going through the same, we find both the petitioner and the victim had a love affair.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court, (under POCSO Act), Jalpaiguri subject to the condition that that after release, the petitioner shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Falakata Police Station except for the purpose of attending the court's proceedings and before release, he must intimate the Officer- in-charge of that Police Station where he shall reside and also meet the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station thrice in every week, until further orders.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The Indian Penal Code offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and the offences of Special enactments are not punishable for sentence of more than six years.The trial will take sufficient time for its conclusion and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for unlimited period.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which bail may 2 M.Cr.C. No.5972/2016 (Virendra Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.) be granted to the applicant Virendra Prajapati.2 M.Cr.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 1, 2016 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case no.40 of 2012 dated 27.02.2012 under Sections 498(A)/306/511 of the Indian Penal Code adding Sections 302/304B of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of : Chaina Khatun....petitioner....for the petitioner.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 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code
The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,) The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".2.This Petition has been filed by A2 and A3 who have been convicted under Sections 120 (b), 302 read with Section 109 and Section 201 read with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.71 of 2019 on 01.02.2020 to suspend the sentence imposed against them and to release the Petitioners on bail.M.Prabhavathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 that the third petitioner have conspired together with the other accused and murdered the victim.The conviction against the second petitioner is only based on the circumstantial evidence as there could not be any eye witness or direct evidence and therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the third accused based on the Extra Judicial confession of A1 recorded by the Village Administrative Officer.Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for suspending the sentence and grant of bail.7.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.Even according to the prosecution, the second Petitioner did not participate either in the murder or in the disposal of the body of the deceased and he was not present in the scene of occurrence.Only based on the Extra Judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, the trial Court has convicted the second petitioner.9.In the opinion of this Court, the Extra Judicial confession is a weak piece 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 of evidence and therefore, arguable points are involved in this appeal.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri against the second petitioner alone is suspended on the following conditions:(i) The accused is directed to execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.(ii) The accused must also appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai on the first Monday of every month until further orders.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
November C.R.M. 11187 of 2017 17, 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on November 9, 2017 in connection with Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 241 of 2017 dated October 27, 2017 under Sections 341/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act;And In the matter of : Mofisul Islam @ Ajab Islam ...petitioner.(Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on further condition that he shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Mohammad Bazar Police Station except for meeting the investigating officer as and when necessary until further orders and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the investigating agency and the court below.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.dns ( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
The appellant has been filed this appeal under Section 14- A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, Harda in AST Case No.48/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344, 506-B of the I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; whereby, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for enlarging the applicant on bail, was dismissed.The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is that prosecutrix, who was more than 16 years and below the age of 17 years went along with applicant Rubab Khan.Co-accused Manish helped both of them.The father of the prosecutrix lodged the missing report of the prosecutrix.When prosecutrix was recovered then she lodged a report against the appellant alleging therein that appellant repeatedly committed sex with her.Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Both are having love affairs.The prosecutrix went along with the appellant on her own volition.During the inquiry of the missing report, co-accused Manish was held by the police and find out the address of the prosecutrix and she was recovered; therefore, it has been prayed to release the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.It is directed that the appellant Rubab Khan shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same 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 Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2020.01.21 11:37:09 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1350 days infiling the Criminal Revision.Challenging the order of cognizance for the offence under Sections294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC against the offenders.According to the revisionpetitioner,considering the gravity of injury sustained by him and intentionof causing such injury, the trial court ought to have taken cognizance underSection 307 of IPC and not under section 324 of IPC.Hence the presentrevision petition is filed with a delay of 1350 days.The reason stated for such delay is that recently the defactocomplainant has come to know about filing of final report for offence undersections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC instead of 307 of IPC.A petition to alter charge is filed by the defacto complainant inthe month of April 2010 after lapse of two years and the trial court afterperusing the records has rejected the plea vide order dated 21.04.2002.Challenging that order the present revision is filed with a further delay of1350 days.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.6.Therefore nothing survives in the revision Petition so as to condonethe delay of 1350 days.Hence this Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1989 passed by the Ist L.C.C., Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS Dildarnagar, district Ghazipur convicting and sentencing the revisionists for a period of two months' simple imprisonment, under sections 323/34 IPC and order dated 09.10.1990 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1989 confirming the order and sentence passed by the trial court.Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.1985 at about 12 O'clock one Ramji was sitting infront of the house of complainant Kamla Kamkar and the said land was sahan land of the complainant.The accused along with one Badri came over there and in furtherance of their common intention started beating Rajmi by lathi, who raised alarm, upon which the complainant Kamla, his father Ram Chandar and his mother came over there to intervene and protect Ramji, whereupon the accused persons also inflicted injuries on Kamla and, also his father Ram Chandar and others.All the accused persons, namely Radhika Kushwaha, Heera Kushwaha and Ram Bilas abused and threatened the complainant.The report was lodged.After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet.Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.After perusal of evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid and passed the aforesaid sentence.Feeling aggrieved the accused persons filed a Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, which was dismissed.Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred.While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside.The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.As I have said earlier the occurrence relates to year 1985 and this revision is pending since 1990, I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conviction and I feel that the conviction should be maintained but the sentence may be modified.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
Kamla, Chandrika, Shyamabai and Shaligram have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Durgeshwari (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Kamla within seven years of her death.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Durgeshwari to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 26/10/10, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Durgeshwari was found hanging in her matrimonial home only.Morgue (Ex.P/15) was recorded at the instance of respondent no.1 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Trial Court further found that Sukhlal Jharia, father of the deceased, admitted in para 13 of his evidence that he had neither informed the police personnel nor the Naib Tahsildar regarding cruelty for non fulfillment of dowry.Trial Court also held that in the said circumstances, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not attracted to the facts of the case.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the lower Court be requisitioned.Also heard on I.A. No.59/2016 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of jail sentence of the sole appellant- Karanlal S/o Shri Mangilal.The present appellant has suffered conviction and jail sentence, which are as under:Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application (IA No.59/2016) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27.04.2016 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed, by the Registry of this Court, in this behalf.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/-

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code
30.07.13 Item No. 48 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 48And In the matter of: Sushama Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioner Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 76 of 2013 dated 31.03.2013 under sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim.The husband and the father-in-law of the victim are both enlarged on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
By this application for grant of leave to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., Counsel for the applicant-State has prayed for grant of leave to appeal.She submitted that there was an ample evidence on record regarding the implication of the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC.There were two children born out of the said wedlock.However, the couple used to often quarrel because the wife wanted to live in Ujjain near her parents.Whereas they were living in the village at Majhania, Distt.Shujalpur and Counsel submitted that in impugned para-10 there was statement by PW1 Monika Trivedi 2 that on the date of the incident on the earlier part of the day, she has seen the husband and wife were quarreling.Thereafter the husband/present accused respondent Durgesh had left for his work and Counsel submitted that this important piece of evidence has been ignored by the trial Court.In impugned para 15 Mahesh Kumar Ray has also corroborated this piece of evidence and Counsel submitted that the impugned order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh trial.Counsel for the respondent-husband, per contra, has candidly stated that the domestic quarrel used to generally take place between the husband and wife.The son has categorically stated that it was the wife who was acting in a manner which is not conducive to sympathy since she was asking the husband to sell off the agricultural land which was his only source of living and shift to the city of Ujjain near her parents which was not possible under the circumstances.There is no other incriminating evidence on record to implicate the accused/respondent.

Cited provisions: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code