Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of this anticipatory bail application contending that applicants were required to remain present at the time of filing of Challan under section 326 of the IPC, but they chose to abscond and, accordingly, proceedings under section 299, Cr.P.C. have been initiated.As such arguments heard on merits of the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2018 registered at Police Station Kurwai, District Vidisha, for the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 324, 325 and subsequently enhanced 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are already on bail in all the sections except S.326 IPC and have not misused the liberty so granted.

Sections cited: Section 326 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 27.09.2019 in connection with Kulpi P.S. Case No. 157 of 2019 dated 15.06.2019 under sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/332/333/353/186/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mrinal Mondal & Ors.Mr. Brajesh Jha, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Arup Sarkar ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a mob agitation against police personnel due to inaction in undertaking investigation with regard to murder of petitioner no.1's brother.No overt act has been attributed to the petitioners.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that one of the police personnel suffered grievous injury.We have considered the materials on record and there is no overt act attributed to the petitioners in the alleged crime.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the Court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Sections cited: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.http://www.judis.nic.in 3Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.The Grounds of Detention would reveal that a ground case was registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC subsequently, altered to Sections 341, 294(b), 302 & 506(ii) IPC.Admittedly, the detenu has moved bail application in the ground case and the same is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.415/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 21.06.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Sudalairaja, Son of Subramani, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sections cited: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State.This is a second bail application.It is further submitted that the cartridge recovered from the body of the deceased could not be tallied with the pistol of appellant.It is further submitted that the appellant was in jail since 17.10.2006 (near about 7 years 7 months 15 days and he was also in jail duration for trial 2 years 1 months) and thus he has undergone about 9 years and 8 months in jail.The appellant was on bail during trial.Learned counsel for appellant undertakes that when the appeal is taken up for hearing he will argue the appeal.Per contra learned A.G.A.has opposed prayer for bail but he did not dispute the aforesaid contentions.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant Afsar has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant Afsar convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.760 of 2003 (State Vs.Afsar and another), under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Ranpura, District Badaun be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.50% of the realization of fine awarded by trial court against the appellant Afsar shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal.List for hearing showing the name of Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey as counsel for appellant.Order Date :- 3.2.2015/RU

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7A copy of the Decree Sheet has also been annexed with the petition.Through Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.Ms. Nazoo Sharma, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.The petitioners as well as the complainant, all of whom are present in person, are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.It is stated that the complainant was married to the first petitioner Tapeshwar Singh on 27.11.2009 and thereafter, as a result of certain matrimonial disputes, the complainant lodged a complaint on 10.08.2010 with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi, and ultimately, on 19.04.2011, on the recommendation of the Crime Against Women Cell, the Crl.M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7 aforesaid FIR was registered.If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus where the parties have settled the matter on mutually acceptable terms, and the complainant and the first petitioner have obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of its success.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.12. Dasti.

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code
Gun

Sections cited:  Pistol and Carbine.Tehsildar Singh was giving exhortation to kill them.The Ambassador Car collided with a Bus which was going towards Varanasi.After the accident Kakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey came out of the Car and while! they were coming out of the car they received some minor injury.The Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey left in the car.Thereafter accused had surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which Vakil Shukla Devi shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai died.One of the accused took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey and all the accused persons were raising slogan Har Har Mahadeo and thereafter they ran away in their Muruti
No.1/State.This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 106/2019 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind alleging offence punishable u/Ss.307/34 of IPC against the petitioners.P.C, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-In so far as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress.Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement.The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused."In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed.

Sections cited: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.949/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution story, the applicant lured the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape on the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix is seven years of age and is a student of UKG.The offence registered against the applicant are under Sections 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.The prosecutrix has been examined on 27/01/2017 before the trial court and she narrated the story contradictory to the allegations made in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which shows that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.Looking to the allegations made against the applicant, this court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant.In the result, this bail application is dismissed.

Sections cited: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL):P.103/2012 Page 2 of 3Accordingly, this defence is left open to be decided by the trial court after recording of evidence.Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid clarifications, but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 06, 2012 NG Crl.P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3

Sections cited: Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
2.The prosecution case is that on 29.11.2007, at about 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein took away the victim girl from the lawful custody of P.W.1 and went to Kerala and during his stay there, for more than 45 days, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl.In this regard, Ex.P1-Complaint was lodged by P.W.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Poonamaravathy Police Station on 29.11.2007 itself.The appellant herein was found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, vide Judgment dated 22.01.2010 in S.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.Based on Ex.P1, Crime No.2 of 2008, was registered on 05.01.2008 for the offence under Section 366(a) of IPC(Ex.P10).Investigation continued and final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam for the offences under Sections 376, 366 and 366(a) of IPC against the appellant herein.Charges were framed 3 against the accused under the aforesaid provisions and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge, by Judgment dated 22.01.2010, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the appeal memorandum.The relationship between the parties appears to havehttp://www.judis.nic.insuffered crack on account of this developments.She had admitted the love affair with the appellant.She had voluntarily gone with the appellant.Her evidence further reinforces the appellant's claim that he always had an intention to marry her and that it was only on account of the criminal case filed by the father of the girl, their entire plan got thwarted.What was marked was only 6 Ex.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following an earlier decision, held that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the approximate date, which is not supported by any record and that it would be quiet unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date.The case on hand is quite similar.The age of the victim has not been established beyond reasonable doubt as below 18 on the occurrence date.The impugned Judgment is set aside.This criminal appeal is allowed.

Sections cited: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Tajuddin Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vijay Sunderam, Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The petitioner is alleged with house-trespass, rape and criminal intimidation.

Sections cited: Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Mannan Sk.... ... petitioner Mr. Biswajit Hazra, Ms. Debrapriya Samanata, Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 129 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000 under Sections 147/148/149/324/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.The State opposes the prayer primarily on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Court more than 17 years after the case was lodged.However, the State fairly submits that the petitioner's name does not figure in the statements obtained.The charge-sheet has long been submitted.Considering the delay in the matter and the fact that the charge- sheet was submitted in 2001, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioner attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

Sections cited: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
The accused in C.C. No. 173 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, has filed this application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings against him.The said petition came to be filed in the following circumstances.The Assistant Divisional Engineer T. N. E. B. Palani, gave a complaint on 27-8-1984 alleging that during the inspection of S.C. 160 Neikkarapatti distribution, belonging to the petitioner, he noticed M.R.T. seals provided in three phase meter in the service missing and that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity by opening the cover of the meter and reduced the recorded units thereunder.On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No. 435 of 1984 Palani Taluk, Police station, under S. 397 I.P.C. read with Sections 39 and 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The said complaint was investigated by one Muthuswami, Sub-Inspector, and he examined as many as ten witnesses and after obtaining opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade I and Grade II) sent the final report dt. 7-5-1985 under S. 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court, to the effect that no case was made out against the petitioner, and the case was referred as 'mistake of fact'.Refer notice under S. 169, Cr.P.C. was also served on the petitioner on 18-5-1985 and his acknowledgment was obtained.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dindigul also on receipt of the final report and after perusing the connected records accepted the final report sent by the said Muthuswami and passed an order on 12-6-1985 as follows-Recorded as "mistake of fact".When the charge-sheet was returned by the Magistrate on 14-2-1986, whether permission has been obtained to reopen, the respondent resubmitted the same on 15-2-1986 stating the circumstances under which it was reopened and seeking permission to investigate the same.The Magistrate passed an order on 19-2-1986 to the effect that permission is granted to investigate the case.He took cognisance of the case and numbered the same as C.C. 173 of 1986 and issued summons to the accused.On receipt of the said summons the accused has filed this application.Petition allowed.

Sections cited: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
Ls Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD).No.7682 of 2019 19.09.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 20194.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.5.Considering the fact that the investigation is almost over, this Court cannot quash the First Information Report at this stage.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed 19.09.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ls To1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

Sections cited: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code, Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first application was rejected on merit vide order dated 8-8-2018 in M.Cr.The applicant after being arrested in connection with Crime No.7/1999 registered at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 324 of IPC, the applicant was released on bail.The prosecution story in short is that the present applicant along with co-accused assaulted the complainant and also caused hindrance in discharge of official duty.Initially the applicant was released on bail and thereafter she continued to remain absent before the trial court.On the basis of aforesaid allegation crime has been registered.Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is, therefore, directed that, applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Committal Court for his appearance during trial on the dates fixed by the concerned Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

Sections cited: Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code