Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.02.2018 made in C.M.P.No.1038 of 2018 in C.C.No.233 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner was implicated in the Crime Number 937 of 2010 on the file of respondent police for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 offences punishable under sections 324, 506(ii) of IPC and 3(1) of P.P.D.L. Act @ 447, 427, 324, 506(ii) of IPC.After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.However, after four years the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.However, the said petition was dismissed.Hence, this criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner has not properly communicated with the petitioner.Hence, the petitioner has engaged a new counsel with request to recall the P.W.1 and P.W.2 and cross examine them.If the petitioner was not given an opportunity, he will be prejudiced and the case will be decided against him.Hence, prayed to allow this petition and the petitioner is ready to deposit reasonable amount as per the direction of this Court.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has no objection to entertain this petition on payment of cost.4.Hence, considering the principles of natural justice, this Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the P.W.1 and P.W.2 on condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- to the Dog Squad, Kaniyakumari District.4.Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The petitioner shall cross examine the P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the same day itself.The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by cash to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District for the welfare of Dog Squad, Kanyakumari District.5.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.18.03.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Sections cited: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
CRM No. 7111 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.8.2018 in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No.408/2017 dated 1.10.2017 under Sections 341/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Shribas Haldar ... Petitioner Mr. Prabir Majumder, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Goutam Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Ayan Basu, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No.408/2017 dated 1.10.2017 under Sections 341/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that following an altercation between two groups there was some violence and only minor injuries were suffered by the de facto complainant's side.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.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Sections cited: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 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 petitioner Budhu Pav in Crime No.257/2017, registered by P.S. Kotma, District-Anuppur under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, petitioner had married the deceased about 2-3 years back.For a while, he kept her well; however, thereafter he used to consume alcohol and beat her and threaten that he would expel her from her matrimonial home; therefore, the deceased had returned to her maternal home and stayed there for a long time.However, since her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, all come to pacify her, she had gone with them about 8 days before the date of incident.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation for demand of dowry against the petitioner.All that has been alleged is that he used to beat the deceased after consuming alcohol and used to threaten that he would expel her from her matrimonial home.The petitioner has been in custody since 21.06.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; 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.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Budhu Pav 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 sp/-

Sections cited: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code
the complainant was known to him and was related to the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.Satender Kumar S/o Sh.Babu Singh who stated that during the period 1988-90 he was residing as a tenant at house No. 11/1155 Satha Mohalla

Sections cited:  Bulandshahr and stated that as far as he recollected the police never came to the said house during the said period.He further stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein used to visit the said house since it was the house of the in-laws of his elder brother.This witness categorically denied during cross-examination that on 24.08.1989 Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had led the police party to the house of Madhusudan at 11/1155
The facts leading to passing of the impugned Detention Order are thatthe defacto complainant Alwyn repaired the lights of the vehicle of the detenuand the detenu assured to pay repair charges of Rs.380/- after 2 days and wentaway.On 3.10.2008 at 4.45 p.m., the defacto complainant Alwyn along with oneManikandan was coming near Petrol Bunk, Uchigopuram, Palayamkottai, Alwyn askedmoney from the detenu and the detenu is alleged to have abused Alwyn andManikandan in filthy language and also threatened Alwyn by brandishing Aruvaland snatched Rs.570 from his shirt pocket.On the complaint lodged by Alwyn, the ground case was registered inCrime No. 1610/2008 under Sections 314, 294(B), 427, 387 and 506(ii) IPC and thedetenu was arrested on 4.10.200 and remanded to judicial custody.In para 3 of the Detention Order, the detaining authority has statedthat owing to the conduct of the detenu, those who were coming to petrol bunk,those who were walking on the road and those who were waiting for the bus tookto their heels out of fear and those who were coming in two wheelers sped awayin their vehicles.Bus drivers stopped the buses and nearby shop-keepers closedtheir shops.(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J) The petitioner, mother of the detenu - M.Udayar alias Durai challenges theDetention Order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the detaining authority, Commissionerof Police, Tirunelveli whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained under theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers,Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)branding him as a "Goonda".The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in a case inPalayamkottai Police station Crime No.862/2006 under Section 302 r/w 120(b), 34IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and in MurappanaduPolice Station Crime No.198/2007 under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment against Women Act.Accordingly, theimpugned order of detention is quashed and Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required inconnection with any other case.1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Sections cited: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code
Skm Crl OP(MD)No.15211 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 26.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

Sections cited: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission.sh Also, heard on I.A. No.24116/2017, which is an application e u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed ad against appellants No.2 Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal, appellant No.4 Pr Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar and appellant No.5 Ramnath.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated a hy 08.11.2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.S.T.No.400128/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge ad found appellants No.2 to 5 guilty for the offences punishable under M Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo five years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and five years R.I. with fine of of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.rt Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court ou without appreciating the evidence properly wrongly convicted the appellants No.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & C 366 of IPC.Although, the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief h deposed that appellant No.5 Ramnath called her at sweet shop and at ig that time appellants No.2 Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal and appellant H No.4 Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar were also present there but in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.D/1), it is not mentioned that appellants No.2 to 5 called her so in this regard her statement becomes afterthought.From the statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, it is not appear that apart from co-accused Pappu @ Raghuraj Singh, appellants No.2 to 5 also abducted the prosecutrix.It is further submitted that due to enmity, the prosecutrix also implicated them in the crime.Learned trial court without appreciating these facts wrongly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences.Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the appellants No.2 to 5 was proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application (I.A. No.24116/2017) is allowed and it is directed that the sh execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellants No.2 e Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal, appellant No.4 Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar ad and appellant No.5 Ramnath shall remain suspended during the Pr pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand a only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction hy of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court ad on 30.04.2018 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf M by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.of C.C. on payment of usual charges.rt (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) ou JUDGE C h ig H (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2018.02.01 13:32:28 +05'30'

Sections cited: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code
(i) Criminal Bail Application No.2472 of 2019 is rejected;(ii) Criminal Bail Application No.2352 of 2019 is allowed;(iii) The applicant Laxman Kantappa Shinde in Bail Application No.2352 of 2019 is directed to be released on bail in connection with CR No.2 of 2019 registered with Ratnagiri Rural Police Station, on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::Rural Police Station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10 am and 1 pm till conclusion of trial;(v) The applicant Laxman Kantappa Shinde shall not tamper with prosecution witness and shall attend the Trial Court proceedings regularly, unless exempted by the Trial Court for some reason.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Subsequently, telephone number was said to be given by applicant and prosecutrix responded to the telephonic call made by Junaid.The accusation against present applicant is at different footing than Juanid, against whom subsequent accusation is there.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant Tajeem Khan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 492 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354C, 504, 507, 406, 377, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Line, District Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail.It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was got registered on 26.08.2019 upon report of Km.Shaheen Hussain for offences punishable under Sections 376, 354C, 504, 507, 406, 377, 506 I.P.C. against Tajeem Khan, Junaid Khan, Smt. Farhat, Jubair Khan, Azam Khan, Shamia, Kahkashan and Smt. Rafat.Prosecutrix was major and was working as staff nurse.Applicant too was an employee at above hospital as ward boy.No accusation against applicant is made for those period and the previous instance of 2016 was not complained by prosecutrix.Hence bail has been prayed for.Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that it is a heinous offence of rape wherein present applicant along with Junaid continued physical exploitation of prosecutrix under threat of dire consequences and making a video viral, which was got prepared by them.The prosecutrix suffered this mental and physical exploitation under above threat.Subsequently, she got this case registered and a request has been made to Superintendent of Police for getting investigation in the light of above obscene video, which was got prepared by accused persons.Hence, bail be rejected.Prior to this report, an attempt was made for getting marriage performed.Hence, the accusation against present applicant was not reported by prosecutrix.

Sections cited: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code
None for the complainant.Heard on IA No. 7876/2019, an application for amendment in the subject matter.For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Let necessary amendment be incorporated during the course of the day.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 266/2019 registered under Secs.420, 406, of the IPC initially and subsequently Section 467 of I.P.C. was added at Police Station University, District Gwalior.Before this Court, the proof of conversation between the parties has been filed to show bonafides.On these grounds he prayed for bail.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that Section 467 of I.P.C. has been enhanced.While inviting attention to the statement of Sailendra, it is submitted that it is evident from the statement that offence under Section 467 of I.P.C is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.He has prayed for rejection of application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that FIR has been registered against the present applicant the information was received at 11.45 P.M. and FIR has been registered on same day within a period of 10 minutes on 30/07/2019, in such hurried and hasty manner without inquiry into the allegations, this court is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the applicant.The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned Police Station in the first week of every month till conclusion of investigation and thereafter as may be directed by the trial court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.

Sections cited: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
13.09.2019 This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Sessions Trial No.109/2019, whereby against the applicant No.1 the charges under section 307, 323 in alternatively Section 323/34, 294 & 506(2) of IPC and against the Applicant No.2, charges under section 307/34, 323 in alternatively 323/34, 294, 506(2) of IPC have been framed.The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that on 30.05.2018 at about 12:56 o'clock, complainant, Nasir, son of Abdul Majeed, aged about 42 years, resident of 1629/58, Dashmesh Nagar, in front of Gurudwara, Ashoka Garden Bhopal lodged a report alleging that on 30.05.2018 in between 11:30 to 11:40 am, the complainant who is having the auto parts shop at Apsara Complex, where the mechanic of neighbour asked the complainant to keep aside the vehicle, on this the complainant replied that he has parked his vehicle on his side.2 Cr.On this, the applicant No.1 Shadiq started abusing by filthy language, to which, complainant has objected then the applicant No.1 assaulted by danda on the left side of the head and left hand, complainant sustained head injury, blood came out, thereafter, the mechanic of the complainant Shaariq intervened.Applicant No.2 also abused the complainant by filthy language and asked to assault Shaariq and on which, the applicant no.2 assaulted Shaariq by means of danda on the right hand thumb and due to which Shaariq sustained injury and blood came out.On this FIR was lodged and offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC was registered by the police and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the charges under sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.3 Cr.Learned Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicants to prosecute them for commission of offence punishable under sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.I have heard rival contention of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the case diary.At the stage of charge, credibility and reliability of the evidence is not required to be considered.R.No.3412/2019 the complainant.Consequently, complainant Nasir and mechanic Saariq sustained injuries.

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
The petitioner has come before this court for quashment of FIR No.29 registered at Police Station Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 420 of IPC on the allegation that using forged documents the petitioner obtained a Government job.The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of a complaint departmental enquiry was initiated against him and after concluding the departmental enquiry order dated 24.09.2016 passed against him.Charges were found proved and he was terminated from the court, but no directions were given in this order to file any complaint or to register any case under the IPC, while the FIR is said to be registered on the instigation of one Abhishek Ranjan, Executive Engineer, who was not authorized in any way to lodge such FIR.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Executive Engineer has no authority to take any criminal action against the petitioner in the absence of any such direction from his superior authorities.It is mentioned in the FIR that on receiving a letter from the Executive Engineer, M.P. Pakshim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Shujalpur that two persons namely Kasam @ Munnu Khan S/o Hasan Khan and Kasim Khan S/o Hasan Khan have obtained Government job by producing forged documents, therefore, an appropriate action be taken HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017 (Kasam Khan S/o Hasan Khan V/s.State of M.P.) against them.The Police has registered the case against the present applicant and investigated the case and on finding sufficient evidence to prosecute him have filed the charge-sheet.It is well settled law that for registration of a cognizable crime, no such direction as stated by the petitioner is required to the Police.On revelation of any cognizable offence from any information received from anyone, Police can register case and investigate the same.

Sections cited: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
i. The Bail Application stands withdrawn as against applicant No.1-Amol.The Bail Application stands allowed in respect of applicant No.2- Vikas Gorakh Mahanor.He be released in connection with CR No.414/2019 registered at Dhule City Police Station, District Dhule for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC dated 4.12.2019, on PR of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each.Applicant No.2 shall not tamper::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 ::: (6) with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::v. Bail before the Trial Court.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::

Sections cited: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code