Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 sh of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the e petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar in crime no.136/2016 registered ad by P.S.-Harpalpur, District-Chhatarpur under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC.Pr His first application for the same relief had been dismissed by a hy this Court as withdrawn by order dated 17.03.2017 in M.Cr.ad Since the first application was dismissed as withdrawn, this M application is being considered on merits.As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening of 25th of and 26th August 2014, victim Tanu Gupta was going in his rt ou pickup vehicle along with driver Chhotu Raikwar from Harpalpur to Jhansi.On the highway, a swift vehicle overtook C them and four persons came out.They one mobile phone h each from the possession of Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar ig and Rs.1,500/- from Tanu Gupta, on the point of a country H made pistol.During investigation, petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar was not identified by the victims; however, on the disclosure statement made by petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar, Rs.500/- in cash and two mobile phones looted in the incident were seized.The offence involved loot of only Rs.1,500/- and two mobile phones.The petitioner has been in custody since 05.10.2016; as such, he has spent more than a year and quarter in custody.The two main witnesses namely Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar had already been examined by the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.There is no case against property earlier registered against petitioner.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that there is another case under Section 307 of the IPC, registered against the petitioner.ad It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing M a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance of before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with rt the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of ou Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.03.07 21:35:23 -08'00'

Sections cited: Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code
Ct-33 Kole CRR 1817 of 2019 Chandan Kumar BeraThe State of West Bengal Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. S. Maity ... for the petitioner.Ms. Sayanti Santra ... for the State.By the impugned order the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-investigation of the case after considering the submissions made by prosecution and the defence.During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation ended in the submission 2 of charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only.On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge- sheet after considering the materials in the case diary.From the submission and rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner made prayer for reinvestigation before the learned Trial Court but failed to justify why further investigation was required to be conducted by the Investigating Officer.I have gone through the impugned order.I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.From the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for further investigation only for adding 3 some sections on the basis of materials already collected by the Investigating Officer.However, Learned Trial Judge is requested to consider the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation at the time of consideration of charge.In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.Hence the same is rejected on due consideration.Accordingly, CRR 1817 of 2019 is disposed of.Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Sections cited: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
This is the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.397/2014 registered at Police Station-Kurwai, District-Vidisha under Section 420, 467, 468, 406, 506-B/34 of IPC.According to prosecution case, father of the complainant died in the year 2007 and the complainant went to collect his pass-book from State Bank, Barvai where Bank Officials returned the same after two years.Complaint received notice from State Bank intimating that a loan of Rs.79,000/- has been withdrawn.Complainant went of State Bank and saw that photograph of his father is not pasted in the Credit Card.Instead of his father's photograph, photograph of Shriram Pandit has been pasted.Balwant Singh and Datar Singh identified Shriram Pandit.2 M.Cr.When complainant asked Balwant, Datar and Shriram to pay the loan amount, they refused to re-pay the same, thus, report has been lodged.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.It is further submitted that applicant is not the beneficiary but he has only identified Shriram Pandit.There is no likelihood of the absconsion of the applicant, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.Learned Dy.Government Advocate for the non- applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.I have perused the case-diary.Taking into consideration the allegations against the applicant and the material collected during investigation and also keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I find that no ground is made out for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.

Sections cited: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Arguments heard.Case diary perused.This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant Rehan Khan, who is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.44/2018 registered at Police Station Kohefiza, District Bhopal (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.According to the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the victim with a view to outrage her modesty.He is falsely implicated because applicant's father has lodged FIR on 1.1.2018 and 3.1.2018 against the father and brother of the complainant with regard to quarrel.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required and will co-operate in the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.

Sections cited: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
The allegations are omnibus.In The High Court At Calcutta 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.2037 of 2014 Gibesh BarmanThe State of West Bengal Mr. Syed Julfikar Ali ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur ...for the State.Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.124 of 2013 dated February 28, 2013 under ss.493/376/385/307 IPC (s.302 IPC added subsequently) is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows.At the date of the incident the petitioner was not in house.He was staying elsewhere.Some of the accused have been granted bail.Advocate for the State producing the case diary has submitted as follows.The petitioner was named in the FIR.The statements of the witnesses reveal that the victim was staying at the place of the petitioner from December 16, 2012, and that the petitioner's brother inducing the victim to come with him promised in a village mediation to marry the victim and also to keep her in his house.The dying declaration is that the 2 victim was set on fire by one Monika Barman.It appears that Monika is the petitioner's mother.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.Certified xerox.

Sections cited: Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code
C.c.as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)Heard finally at motion stage.This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas in Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, whereby he partly allowed the appeal by modifying the conviction and sentence passed by JMFC, Khategaon in Cri.Case No.766/2008 dated 14.8.2013, wherein learned Judge found the applicant guilty for offence under Section 456, 354, 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further fifteen days' SI.As per prosecution case on 24.12.2008 at 2.00 AM in the night when complainant was sleeping in varndah applicant came and touched her breast.On that complainant awaked and saw the applicant standing nearby her bed and shouted, upon which the applicant closed her mouth and threatened to kill her.When her husband returned from Indore she lodged a report of the incident at P.S., Nemawar and Police registered Crime No.111/2008 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant.On that charge sheet, Cri.Case No.766/2008 was registered against the applicant and the trial Court framed charge under Section 456, 354, 324 and 506-B of IPC against the applicant and tried him and after recording of evidence acquitted the accused under Section 506-B of IPC but found him guilty under Section 456, 354 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.100/- on each count.Against this, applicant filed Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, which was partly allowed by Addl.Being aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed.He is first offender and was remained in Jail since 27.10.2016 and no incident of bad behaviour or uncooperative attitude was reported against the applicant.Further the applicant has no criminal past nor was he involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident.So he be released on sentence already undergone.Certainly the pre and past incidents, conduct of the applicant, cannot be lost sight and can be taken as mitigating circumstances.The applicant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other crime.Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed in the terms indicated above.A copy of this order be sent to the Court of JMFC, Khategaon for information and necessary compliance.

Sections cited: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.R. 2744 OF 2016 SB Ct. No. 30 (C.R.A.N. 3215 of 2018) Ritam Bhaumik & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhasish Banerjee Mr. Biswajit Sardar Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay Mr. Sarthak Burman Ms. Nipa Mullick Mr. Amit Halder .... For the petitioners .Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu ..... For the State By an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceeding arising out of Baranagar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 under section 342/354/357/509/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3181 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.The facts in brief giving rise to the present application are as follows:Disputed questions of fact are matters to be decided by evidence during the trial.

Sections cited: Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code
The allegation against the applicant is of assaulting the complainant and his associates with certain weapons and causing minor injuries which were subsequently discovered as grevious adding the provisions of Section 326 of IPC.It is seen that a cross-case bearing crime no. 376/13 has also been registered against the complainant party where the the applicant was found to have sustained frontal bone depression due to farsa blow as per the CT scan report.

Sections cited: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 413 IPC alongwith 394 IPC, therefore, he has filed present bail applicant after rejection of the bail application by the Court below.Applicant is having criminal history of certain cases, which are explained in the affidavit.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

Sections cited: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Page 2 of 6The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the injured discharged from the hospital.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal, on condition that each of the petitioners Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:Page 3 of 6[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.O.P.No.9267 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.297 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.24.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order dh ToThe Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal.The Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Erumapatty, Namakkal District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J dh Crl.

Sections cited: Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.T. No. 134 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 268 of 2009), State Vs.Ravindra @ Raghvendra and others, under Sections 302 /34, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Madhuban, District Mau.Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Saroj Singh lodged a report at the police station stating that she was married to Devanand.Later on marriage could not continue and the relations of husband and wife between Smt. Saroj Singh and Devanand came to an end by the court.The opposite party no. 2 was being maintained by her mother Vijay Laxmi and was living in the village with her daughter Kumari Jyoti.On 26.2.2009 the opposite party no. 2 had gone to Madhuban to bring admit card of her daughter Jyoti, who was a student of class 10 of Subhagi Devi Higher Secondary School, Madhuwan, Mau but she could not get the admission card and came back to her house on foot managing her other affairs.When she reached her house at about 5 p.m., she saw that her daughter was hanging by a rope.When she was trying to save her daughter, suddenly Raghvendra Yadav @ Kanthi Yadav and Vikas Mall started fleeing away from the other room.The complainant requested both the accused to help her in saving her daughter but they threatened to kill the complainant and ran away with banki in their hands.Just thereafter Rana Pratap Singh @ Pinku Singh and Chandra Prakash accompanied by Santosh Kumar Singh reached the spot.After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Raghvendra @ Ravindra and one Ram Kishan Yadav.Charge sheet was not submitted against Vikas Kumar Mall.When the charge sheet was submitted in court, charges were framed against the accused persons and the statement of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj Singh commenced.After examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj was concluded, an application was moved by the prosecution to summon Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned lower court, vide order dated 4.2.2010 summoned the accused Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist.I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

Sections cited: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
material and circumstances placed on record by the prosecution do not at all suggest that the firing was as a result of any criminal conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 or they shared any common intention attracting Section 34 of the IPC.Even if A-3 knew Jessica Lal from before and was found talking to her some time between 11.30 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. it is not at all a circumstance for presuming any conspiracy or common intention to kill her because nothing has come on record that any of the accused had any motive or ill will for killing her.The State is highly aggrieved by the discharge of accused No.6 Shyam Sunder and prays for framing of charges under Section 201/212 IPC against him.Learned counsel for the State has argued that the disclosure statement made by A-1 led to the ""discovery of the fact"" that after the incident the weapon used in the offence was handed over by A-1 to A-10 R.K. Sudan.The statement of PW Ashok Kumar Dutt and the tape recorded conversation between A.K. dutt and accused R.K. Sudan raise strong suspicion against A-6 that the weapon of offence was handed over to him by A-10 R.K. Sudan and thereafter A-6 gave him some money and arranged that he left India without any delay.It is submitted that if A-10 had fallen into the hands of the police

Sections cited:  he would have disclosed that he had handed over the weapon to A-6 and then it would have been possible for the police to effect the recovery thereof.He submits that weapon of offence was very material in this case as it was a licensed weapon and if bullets fired at the spot could be linked to this weapon it would have been a clinching piece of incriminating evidence against A-1
As per prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant on the basis of false promise of giving job to the complainant party had taken some amount from them thereby committed offence under section 420 & 406 of IPC.The applicant is a lady of 55 years of age who has no criminal antecedents alleged against her.The charge sheet has since been filed.The applicant is Anganwadi Worker and is directly or indirectly not connected with the alleged offence.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 Dehat, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 302/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 420, 406 of IPC.The applicant has not taken any money from the complainant party.The offence under sections 420 & 406 of IPC are not made out against the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 10/06/2017 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor 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 2 M.Cr.C. No.6620/2017 made out.The applicant shall appear and mark her attendance before the trial court concerned once every month.

Sections cited: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code