Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
From the affidavit filed before us today the following facts have been revealed: -On November 15, 2010 the aforesaid Jaladhar Singh Sardar fled away from Jabla More, P.S. 2 Manbazar, District Purulia while he was on the way back to Purulia Correctional Home along with his two surities, namely, Sri Deban Singh Sardar and Smt. Mamata Singh Sardar.Though it is revealed from the above report that Radiogram under Serial no. 144/AB/2010 dated November 15, 2010 was sent to(i) ADGP and I.G of Correctional Service, West Bengal and (ii) Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia, no satisfactory information has been furnished before us today in the aforesaid affidavit with regard to the necessary steps which might be taken in the aforesaid matter.At this stage, we are of the opinion, that filing of affidavits furnishing information to the Court is not enough for the officers concerned to discharge their functions for which they have been paid fat salaries from the public exchequer.Usually, it is not the practice of this Court to direct the responsible officers of the State Government to be present personally before us leaving aside of their important assignments 3 in connection with their respective services.But in this case, we think fit and proper to direct the following officers to be present before us to explain their conduct which amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which should have been taken in this case long back: -i) The Director General and Inspector General of Correctional Service, West Bengal;1 2017 CRA No. 137 of 2007 In Re : Amrit Singh Sardar & Ors.ii) The Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned range relating to the District of Purulia;iii) The Superintendent, District Correctional Home, Purulia;iv) The Superintendent of Police, District Purulia;v) The Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia;The aforesaid officers are directed to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing of this matter, i.e. on July 28, 2017 at the first sitting of this Court with relevant records to satisfy this Court with regard to the steps taken in the above matter for the period from November 15, 2010 till date in accordance with the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure.Heard in part.Further hearing of this appeal stands adjourned.

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Counsel for the parties have chosen not to appear at the call by High Court Bar Association to boycott the Court.Let record of the trial Court be called for.Perused the judgment.Considered I.A. No.23926/2015, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.In view of the fact that appellants though were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 294, 325/34, 323/34, 395 and 506B of IPC; however, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 294, 323/34, 395 and 506B IPC and that co-accused Suresh, Deeprani and Haribai are being exonerated of all the charges and the fact that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty so granted, but without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC deserves to be suspended.The I.A. is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that on appellants, viz. Kannai and Mukesh Kurmi, depositing entire fine amount as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with a solvent surety Criminal Appeal No.3281/2015 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.3.2016 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended till further orders and they shall be released on bail.Let this appeal be listed for final hearing in due course under appropriate category.C.C. as per rules.

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Rustam Singh Barela in Crime No.07/2018 registered by Police Station Rajpura, District Damoh under Sections 376D, 450 and 506 of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 28 years old mature, married woman with two children.At about 12:30 p.m. on 27.2.2018, the prosecutrix was sleeping at her home with her two children.She had not bolted the door from inside.Her husband had gone to visit his relatives.At that time, petitioner Rustam came and lay with her on the same cot.The prosecutrix thought that it was her husband, who was sleeping.However, when she realized that petitioner Rustam was sleeping on the cot, she raised an alarm; whereon, Rustam threatened to kill and clamped her mouth shut.Rustam informed her that petitioner Prem Singh is also standing outside the door; thereafter, Rustam raped the prosecutrix.When Rustam was leaving, prosecutrix threw a brick on him.Both Rustam and Prem Singh were threatening to kill the prosecutrix and her husband.when her husband arrived at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, report was lodged.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the prosecutrix, her husband and her brother-in-law have been recorded by the trial Court on 29.6.2018 and they have all turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all.In support of his contention, he has filed copies of the statements of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.11936/2018 Rustam Singh Barela Vs.State of M.P.prosecution witnesses.The petitioner has been in custody since 1.3.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the statement of the prosecution witnesses cannot be evaluated or appreciated for the purpose of grant of bail to an accused person.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Rustam Singh Barela, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- 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 Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.07.11 23:15:59 -07'00'

Sections cited: Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Singh in crime no. 4/2017 registered by P.S.-Hinouta, District-Chhatarpur (M.P.) under Sections 307, 353, 186, 212, 216/34 of I.P.C. and 25/27 of Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, on an information received from an informer on 4/03/17, the police party of P.S. Chandla reached the field of petitioner Ram Singh Pal to arrest Ramavtar Kewat, who carried an award on his head.When the police party conducted a raid, co-accused Ramavtar fired two shots from a .315 bore country-made pistol.Both the shots sailed over the head of the police personnel.The police force also fired in defence.However, Ramavtar managed to escape from the spot but Ram Singh was caught.A .315 bore loaded country-made pistol and a live cartridge was seized from his possession.He has been falsely implicated in the case.No policemen suffered a gun-shot injury in the incident.In fact, the police had woken up the petitioner who was sleeping in his field and had beaten him.He had sustained an injury to his head in the incident.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the bail application on the ground that four policemen have suffered simple injuries in the incident.the police failed to arrest the main accused Ramavtar in the case;the petitioner Ram Singh has no criminal antecedents; andthe petitioner has been in custody since 5/03/17;-in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Singh is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- 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 Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Vy/

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code
The applicant is law abiding person.If he is released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty, terms and conditions of bail and will co-operate in the trial.(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C (iv) argument/judgement.If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Saurabh

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 The present Writ Petition is filed to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent bearing Na.No.2961/ 2017/ H1, dated 26.07.2018 and quash the same.Thereafter, the second respondent had passed a suspension order on 13.11.2017, suspending her from service based on the allegation that an F.I.R. was registered against her on 13.11.2017 in Crime No.492/2017 under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC and hence, she was placed under suspension.Though she was suspended in the year 2017, however, till date the suspension order was not revoked, for which, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition and prayed for appropriate orders.3.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner conducted an unregistered chit and collected huge money from the general public, for which the general public affected and she cheated the general public by collecting huge money without obtaining any approval from the Competent Authority.For which the police registered an F.I.R. against her in F.I.R. No.492/2017 under Sections 2/4http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC.Hence, the suspension order issued against the petitioner is valid and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation for revocation of suspension order and for payment of subsistence allowance, for which, the respondents may pass appropriate orders on merits.5.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.2.The Commissioner, 3/4http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 Ranipettai Municipality, Ranipettai, Vellore District.

Sections cited: Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J.Abdul Khader, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri Division, at Krishnagiri, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code.Section 498 of the Penal Code punishes persons who cohabit with a woman after deceitfully making a belief in her that she was legally married to him.The prosecution case was that on 16th January 1967, the appellant by deceit, made P.W. 1 believe, that she was married to him and after creating such a belief in her mind, he made her cohabit with him.The defence of the appellant was one of denial.The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant went through a form of marriage knowing that it was not the proper form and thereby deceived P. W. 1, and made her have sexual intercourse with him.The appellant is not a stranger to P. W. 1 because he is her cousin.He had given a new saree and ear ornaments to her.There was also an exchange of garlands in the presence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and one Lal Batcha.They lived together as husband and wife for a few days.The appellant had taken P. W. 1 to his house, and after two days, his sister, brother-in-law and father had pushed P. W. 1, out.The appellant had asked her to remain with her grand-mother stating that he would fix up a house and then take her.These circumstances establish that he never practised any deception on her.The section is not intended to punish one for contracting a marriage which turns out to be illegal.But it only punishes a man for obtaining, the body of the worn in by deceitfully assuring her that he had acquired that right by jus mariti.P. W. 1 in this case was lawfully married to the petitioner.Further, there has been no deceitful assurance or act on his part so as to attract Section 493, Penal Code.The conviction is hot correct.Both the conviction and sentence are set aside.The appeal is allowed.

Sections cited: Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.In the present case, the applicant is under incarceration for more than three and half years and he has completed half of the punishment prescribed for the said offence.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that statements of material witnesses have already been recorded in crime No.83/2014 on the basis of which this Court has already enlarged the applicant on bail vide order dated 29/04/2019 passed in MCRC No.15314/2019, therefore, allegation does not survive.The applicant is in custody since 03/10/2015 and early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pretrial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2019.06.18 17:09:40 +05'30'

Sections cited: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants in Court today is taken on record.This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1352 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2018 (State vs. Sunil Pandey and another), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Purani Basti, District-Basti pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.Heard Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kripa Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.After death of mother of opposite party no.2, namely, Pavitra Devi, the name of opposite party no.2 and his elder brother has been entered in the revenue records as legal heir of their mother.The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

Sections cited: Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
1 9.2018 b.CRM No. 7347 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 6th September, 2018 in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 155 of 2018 dated 12.4.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/427/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Ajidul Haque & Ors.... Petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha .. for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 155 of 2018 dated 12.4.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/149/ 427/326/302/of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that they have been falsely implicated in the case though some of the petitioners may have been accidental by-standers.The State refers to the statements of several eye- witnesses under Section 161 of the Code where the names of several of these petitioners figure.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.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Sections cited: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.This is first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 26.04.2017 in connection with Crime No.136/2017, registered at Police Station Hanumana, District Rewa, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368/34 of IPC.Initially the offence against the present applicant was registered under Section 363 of IPC and later on after investigation offence under Section 366, 368 r/w 34 of IPC were added.It is also found from the material available on record that the present applicant had taken the girls from the house and handed over to one Sunita, further she had not accompanied them.Considering the aforesaid, and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2017, the application is allowed.It is directed that applicant Seema Basor be released on bail on her 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, securing applicant's presence before the trial court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.The application is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) V. JUDGE ss

Sections cited: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 31/10/2018 14:20:58 ::2::In brief, the prosecution case is that at the relevant point of time, applicant No.1 was posted as Gram Rozgar Sahayak and applicant Nos.2 & 3 were posted as Sub-Engineer in Gram Panchayat, Junapani in District-Harda.A complaint in writing was made to Special Police Establishment/Lokayukt by one Mahesh Kumar Gurjar alleging that the applicants along with elected office bearers of Gram Panchayat had prepared false bills, vouchers and muster rolls to misappropriate the funds allotted for the construction of toilets under the government scheme.Sections 420, 409, 467 & 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c), 13 (1)Hence, this petition to quash the F.I.R.We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the material available on record.

Sections cited: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.M. 106 of 2014And In the matter of: Subrata Mondal and Ors. ...Petitioners.Mr. Ashok Das ...for the petitioners.Therefore, the petitioner no.1, namely, Subrata Mondal, the petitioner no.2, namely, Subhas Bar, the petitioner no.3, namely, Prabhat Bar, the petitioner no.4, namely, Arup Makhal, the petitioner no.5, namely, Basudeb Makhal, the petitioner no.6, namely, Srikanta Mondal, the petitioner no.7, namely, Indrajit Gayen, the petitioner no.8, namely, Biren Gayen, the petitioner no.9, namely, Ratan Makhal alias Balaram, the petitioner no.10, namely, Biswanath Makhal alias Biswajit, the petitioner no.11, namely, Srikanta Bar and the petitioner no.12, namely, Sunil Gayen, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each with two sureties of like amount, one of 2 whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Uluberia, District: Howrah.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)

Sections cited: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B 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 326 in The Indian Penal Code
C.C. as per rules.Head the learned counsel for the parties.Looking to the physical condition, applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code