Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 2208 of 2007 Suvadip Mukherjee versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.Seeking quashing of order of framing charge under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with BGR Case No. 2472/06 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court moved the instant criminal revisional application.The affidavit of service is already on record.However, Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State are present in Court.He further submitted that the impugned order of framing charge without recording reason clearly demonstrate that such an order was passed by the Learned Magistrate mechanically and without any application of mind.Mr. Sekhar Basu, vehemently urged before this Court the impugned order of framing charge is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction.Mr. Basu further submitted that from the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the course of investigation, on the face of the same does not make out any prima facie case for which the impugned charge has been framed.He thus prays for quashing of the impugned order of framing charge.(ii) Krishan Lal & Ors.Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994 Cri.(iii) Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr.(iv) Mattulal Vs.(vi) The State of U.P. Vs.(vii) Sardar Singh Vs.(viii) Bharwad Bhikha Natha & Ors.(IX) Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs.The relevant allegations made in the FIR is quoted below; "On July 25, 2006 I compelled to leave my matrimonial home but subsequently I tried to resile the issues with my husband and his family members but my husband got infuriated and refused to compromise the matter.He threatened me with dire consequences and further assaulted and threatened me and my family members with danger to our life and limbs.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code
Case diary perused.This is a first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.195/2019 registered at P.S. Kohefiza District Bhopal (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC.The allegation of prosecution is that on 22/03/2019 at about 9.30 pm, in front of Akhtar Apartment Khanugaon, Bhopal under Police Station Khohefiza, Bhopal the present applicant alongwith co-accused persons have reached on the spot and assaulted complainant Shoeb Mazhar because of some old rivalry.Co-accused Akbar has inflicted injury to complainant Shoeb Mazhar with a knife due to which he sustained injuries on his chest.At that time, co-accused Shahid has also inflicted injury to Shazeb on the left side of his back.The trial will take long time for its final disposal.It is further Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37 2 MCRC-15252-2019 submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant.The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhopal and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.There is no allegation against the present applicant that he has inflicted any injury to the complainant.He is in custody since 26/3/2019/. The applicant is a young boy of 24 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant seems to be acceptable.It is directed that applicant Shadab Ali 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.The M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37

Cited provisions: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
of the case, in short, are that one co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu had given a complaint on 28.04.2010 to Station House Officer, Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) that he along with the deceased Santosh Sharma were going to meet their friends.Near Nehru Park, Kampoo, Gwalior, some friends met Santosh Sharma and Dev Prakash @ Devu and therefore they started talking with them.Santosh found that some persons were quarrelling with his friends and therefore Santosh took the gun of co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu and started assaulting the persons quarrelling with the base of the gun.It was also mentioned in the application that in the meantime a fire took place and Santosh himself sustained injuries and 2 CRR.779.2010 Pankaj Singh Rajput Vs State of Madhya Pradesh ultimately he died.Investigation was done and the charge-sheet was filed after recording the evidence of various persons.The police had filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304 or 304/34 of IPC whereas the trial court has framed the charges of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that since there was no previous enmity of applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput he did not intend to kill the victim Santosh.It cannot be said that he did not intent to kill the victim Santosh.Intention of an accused may be developed at the time of incident.Trial Court has found his intention on two reasons.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the court below for information.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Allegation against the applicant in short is that the applicant along with the other co-accused caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix with bad intention and quarreled with the brother of the prosecutrix.This led in filing of FIR against the applicant and other co-accused.Heard both the parties.It is directed that applicant-Salman shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum o f Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (3) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 25/07/2019 16:30:54

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.Rule returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur.In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'.At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel.The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose between petitioners in relation to running of the said hotel business.It was submitted that on 23-1-2007, petitioner No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 36/2007 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the Small Cause Court, Nagpur for declaration and permanent injunction.The petitioner No. 1 also obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction for protecting her possession of the property.Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that looking to the nature of disputes and unnecessarily lodging of reports/complaints against each other by the petitioners, family friends and well wishers of the petitioners persuaded the petitioners to settle their disputes.Accordingly a compromise petition was prepared and filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur.Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar and made the same request of quashing of criminal proceedings since petitioners have amicably settled disputes amongst themselves and want to have good and cordial relations in future.Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, contended that crimes registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints lodged by them against each other are non-compound-able and, therefore, in view of bar of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer made by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted.We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

Cited provisions: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant.As per prosecution story, the applicant followed the prosecutrix repeatedly with a clear indication of his interest/ liking her and on the alleged date of incident 22.01.2018, the applicant riding the Activa two wheeler hit on her leg while she was walking, due to which, she had suffered swelling on her feet and wrist.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicant.The family of the applicant and other neighbours had suffered many times, due to nuisance caused by him, which having adverse effect amongst the ladies and children of the area.Therefore, the FIR was lodged against him at Police Station- Chimanganj Mandi THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the order impugned and opposed the bail application.Having perused the case-diary, submission advanced, but without commenting on merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rohit Arya) Judge Kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 2018.04.13 17:49:33 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the false allegations made in the FIR dated 11.10.2013 lodged by opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant tried to outrage the modesty of her and her sister who were in the way.The applicant has also beaten both the sisters and snatched the gold chain and ear-rings and also threatened them of dire consequences.It is further stated that a criminal case (Case Crime No. 143 of 2013) under sections 147, 148, 148, 325, 504, 427 IPC is already pending against the applicant and his family members on the basis of an FIR lodged by the father of opposite party no. 2 and as such the applicant cannot think to commit another offence against opposite party no. 2 and her sister.

Cited provisions: Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Extinction of one's Liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul.Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded "Give me liberty or give me death".It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul.No one would like to barter it for the entire wealth of the world.The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator.One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail - third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S. T. No. 86/97 entitles the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, more so, when this Court had issued directions for disposal of the trial by specified period and had granted him leave to renew the prayer for bail in case the trial is not completed within the stipulated time.The essential facts:The petitioner along with 7 others has been arraigned as accused in respect of offences punishable as mentioned above and is facing trial in S. T No. 86/97 pending in the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.The petitioner had approached this Court in Misc.This Court while declining to admit the petitioner to bail passed a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite the trial.This Court also recorded the assurance of the learned Government Advocate who had stated that the prosecution would produce the witnesses on the dates fixed for hearing and would not seek unnecessary adjournments.As the date was fixed beyond the time stipulated by this Court, the petitioner had approached this Court for being released on bail on the ground there has not been progress in the trial.It is relevant to state here though in the petition certain other grounds have been taken with regard to the merit of the case, the main thrust of submission relates to delay in trial.The petitioner at that stage filed an application for clubbing of his case with the counter case.Resultantly, the application for bail stands rejected.

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.531 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506 (1) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.531 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, ifhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 not already filed.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order tta To1.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.tta Crl.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 03.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code
P.C filed by t he applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.384/2020 registered at Police Station Bhikangaon, District Khargone for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498- A/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story on 24.06.2020 deceased Laxmi Bai had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.On the basis of the information Merg No.53/2020 was registered at Police Station Bhikangaon.During investigation statement of relatives were recorded and it was revealed that deceased was married to co-accused Praveen four years ago and out of the wedlock, two children were born.It is alleged that the applicant was having an affair with co-accused Praveen and they used to harass the deceased due to which she committed suicide.In such circumstances, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.Case diary perused.

Cited provisions: Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
Allowed md.CRM No. 5914 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8.8.2018 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.246/2018 dated 11.07.2018 under Sections 448/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Nur Islam Sk.and others ... Petitioners Mr. Amanul Islam, Advocate .. for the petitioners Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya, Advocate Ms. Sujata Das, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.246/2018 dated 11.07.2018 under Sections 448/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners say that upon the petitioners obtaining bail in connection with another complaint, a false allegation has been levelled that the petitioners attempted to intimidate some witnesses of the victims.The petitioners say that only vague allegations have been made without any particulars.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 petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Cited provisions: Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Shishir Saxena, Advocate for the complainant.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed in S.T. No. 73/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Distt.Vidisha whereby the appellants have been convicted u/S.307/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and convicted u/S 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.I.A. No. 4187/16, an application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of both the appellant is taken up and considered.It is seen from the record that the appellant no.1 Randheer Singh appears to be the main accused who had given pharsa blow on the head of the injured Samandar Singh.By stroke of luck, the injured took evasive action which led to the said blow causing injury on the shoulder instead of head.Fracture was discovered on the shoulder as per the MLC report and therefore the blow was strong enough to break the bone.Thus, appellant no.1 Randheer Singh is not entitled to suspension of sentence.So far as appellant no.2 Ramnath is concerned, it is found by the trial Court that he has given pharsa blow which has led to injury in the hand of injured Yashwant.No grievous injury was found and the appellant no.2 has been implicated with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.Appellant no. 2 has suffered 2 months of imprisonment including the pre conviction period.A.466/2016 has been deposited, on the appellant no.2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAC ONLY) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of trial Court Sironj , for his appearance before concerned Court first on 27th of August, 2016 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned trial Court in this regard.In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned trial Court then the said Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.So far as I.A. No. 5162/16, an application for compromise is concerned,it is seen from the record that the entire assault executed by both the appellants was unprovoked.An altercation took place initially between the rival parties , but could not flared up at that point of time and both the parties went home.Later, in the evening, appellants came armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the injured.The offence of attempt to murder where deadly weapons were used in unprovoked manner renders the offence to be an offence against the society and not against an individual and therefore no case for compromise is made out.Accordingly, I.A. No. 5162/16 and I.A. No. 5163/16 stands rejected.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code