Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
Item No. 30And In the matter of: Bapi Mallick Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury For the Petitioner Mr. Suman Saha For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Dadpur Police Station Case No.62 of 2011 dated 09.06.2011 under sections 341/323/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The charge sheet has been submitted.All the other accused have been granted bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)

Sections cited: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard with the aid of the case-diary.This order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.O R D E R THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.301/15 registered at Police Station-Kanwan, District-Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 509 of the IPC & 11(1) (IV) of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are young persons and permanent resident of District Dhar, having no criminal antecedents.They have been falsely implicated in this case and they are detained since 16/09/2015 & 10/09/2015 respectively; whereas trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicants be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicants are also directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in the Court would result in automatic cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.C. stands disposed of.C.C. as per Rules.[ J.K. Jain ] Judge Adarsh

Sections cited: Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code
No.112 akd [Adjourned] C. R. M. 12445 of 2019 with C. R. A. 236 of 2017 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.12.2019 in connection with Daspur Police Station FIR No. 399 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/354B/379/435/34 of the Indian Penal Code.(G.R. Case No.01 of 2019) And In Re: Sk.Lutphar Rahaman ... ... Petitioner Mr. Suman De .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharjee .. Advocate Mr. Arindam Sen .. Advocate ... ... for the State Department is directed to submit informal Paper books by the next date.Let this matter appear four weeks hence.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code
The petitioner who is the Proprietor of the factory under the name and style of M/s. Poddar Iron Industries was prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act for not making payment of employees' contribution for the period between September, 1974 and September, 1975 before the S. D. J. M. Howrah.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay fine in default imprisonment in all the cases.Thereafter, the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. on the complaint of respondent No. 2, being G. R. Case No. 104/76, It is against this prosecution that the petitioner has come up before this Court.

Sections cited: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
P.C. during investigation have also stated in one voice that during the stay of the complainant in her matrimonial home at Mainagurie, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and by the present petitioner also.In her written complaint, on the basis of which the case has been started, the complainant has clearly alleged that during her stay in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to ill- treatment, mental torture as well as assaults by her husband's elder brother who is the present petitioner in this case.In her written complaint, the complainant has gone to the existent of alleging that because of ill- treatment and torture by the present petitioner she was feeling insecure in her matrimonial home.The parents of the complainant in their 5 statement under Section 161 of the Cr.In the case referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the main allegations against the accused persons was that they were spreading rumors without any basis against the complainant and when the complainant's - husband was residing abroad, he used to disconnect the telephone connection while taking to his wife due to which the wife became mentally sick.It was another allegation in that case that when the wife went to the house, where the accused was residing at the relevant time, she was turned out from there.

Sections cited: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.M. No. 14930 of 2014 MNS.And In the matter of: Atul Mondal ...petitioner.Mr. Aslam Khan ...for the petitioner.Ms. Faria Hossain ...for the State.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
In the present case, dying declaration Ex. P/1 was recorded by the Tahsildar - Ramji Lal Verma (PW-1) is negative.The deceased did not mention about harassment relating to demand of dowry etc. Her parents namely Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother have stated for the first time to the police in merg inquiry on 17.3.2011 i.e., approximately after five weeks of the incident that there was a demand of motor-cycle, golden chain and a cash of Rs.50,000/-.The deceased had died within seven months of her marriage and if she would have been tortured for dowry demand etc., then there must be some FIR lodged by her in her life time and she would have stated about the same in her dying declaration.Heard on IA No.5361/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 Anandibai.The appellant No.2 has been convicted for offence under Sections 304 B of IPC and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 14 years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 2 years RI respectively.Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty granted to her.Some conciliation proceedings would have been initiated by the parents of the deceased in Cr.Appeal No.1196/2015 6-7 months before the respected persons of the community or any other steps would have been taken to resolve the dispute.It would be apparent from the statements of Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother that they have stated that the deceased was harassed for dowry demand was only on the afterthought basis.There are fair chance of success of criminal appeal.Therefore, appellant No.2 Anandibai prays for bail and execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Consequently, application I.A.No.5361/2016 is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount, if the appellant No.2 Anandi Bai furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that she shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 29.11.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellant shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.

Sections cited: Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

Sections cited: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.45 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.45 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.11.Even though the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.On perusal of the record it could be seen that it is predominantly the civil dispute between the parties and the parties are close relatives and now, the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute between themselves peacefully, both are living in peace and harmony and the second respondent/defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint.1.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Arumuganeri, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the 1st respondentpolice, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 06.01.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.13 of 2015pending on the file of the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and also recording the joint memo of compromise dated06.01.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the first respondent inrespect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 06.01.2016 shall form part of this order.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Sections cited: Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dimni, District Morena in connection with Crime No.185/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S 306/34 of IPC.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 2 innocent, who has no criminal past.It is also submitted that the incident was occurred on 10.09.2018 and after a long time on 21.10.2018, first time the evidence was recorded by police and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, hence prayed for grant of regular bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Sections cited: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code
acquitted for charges pertaining to offences under Sections 504, 324, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.In para 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has adverted to serious anomalies found in the evidence of Balwant Singh (PW.1) and Sohan Singh (PW.2), who are said to be injured persons.The FIR (Ex. P/1) has been lodged by Balwant Singh (PW.1), wherein it has been stated that the incident took place at 6:00 am in the morning, in which he himself as well as Sohansingh (PW.2) and Gulabsingh (PW.4) sustained bodily injuries.On the contrary Sohan Singh (PW.2) says that the incident took place in the evening and he did not accompany Balwant Singh (PW.1) to the field in the morning.Further, it is noticeable that as per version given by Balwant Singh (PW.1) a mason and some labourer were also present at the alleged time of incident i.e. 6:00am.However, the learned Magistrate has disbelieved it on the ground that ordinarily mason and labourer will not go to work at 6:00 pm in the morning.Learned Magistrate has also noticed that one of the witnesses J.C. Malviya (PW.7) has stated that the incident took place at around 9:00 am while as per Balwant Singh (PW.1) the incident took place at 6:00 am.Thus the three witness namely Balwant Singh (PW.1), Sohan Singh (PW.2) and JC Malviya (PW.7) have stated different timing regarding the incident, which is not reconcilable.Apart this, no independent witness has been examined, though it is stated that a mason and some labourer were present at the time of alleged incident.

Sections cited: Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
During the suspension period the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 30.08.1995 under Clause 15(2) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, read with Section 4(e) of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he did not intimate about the above said case and his arrest to his department.Vide order dated 17.02.2003 issued by Manager (P & A) the petitioner was released from suspension and was ordered to be taken back on duty w.e.f. 18.02.2003, pending inquiry into the case.The petitioner was served with another memo dated 10.03.2003 whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the penalty of 'censure' be not imposed upon him.The petitioner vide his explanation dated 13.03.2003 explained that his delay in informing the office regarding the arrest was not intentional but beyond his control as he was handicapped due to police custody and there was not even a single member of his family who could have informed the office as all of them were in jail.Vide impugned order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of 'censure' was imposed upon the petitioner and it was further ordered that "the subsistence allowance which had already been paid to him for the period he remained under suspension is considered adequate", meaning thereby, that the remaining pay and allowances stood forfeited.The review petition was also dismissed.Consequently, the present writ petition was filed wherein it was prayed that writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2003 passed by the respondent forfeiting his residue pay and allowances for the period of suspension w.e.f. 19.03.1995 to 18.02.2003 kindly be issued.It was further prayed that interest be also granted.I have heard the counsel for the parties.He urged that it was incumbent upon the respondent to give him reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why the above said portion of salary and other allowances should not be paid to him.In order to bring his point home, he has cited following authorities.(11) The appeal is allowed and the High Court's order is set aside.The competent authority is directed to consider the question de novo after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him.The respondent will pay to the appellant costs of this appeal as also the costs of the petition in the High Court.It must be borne in mind that vide order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner.It has not been called into question in these proceedings.It has attained finality.

Sections cited: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code
According to him, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 erection of the proposed electric tower would compromise the property in several ways and his objections in regard to the project ought to have been taken into account.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Energy, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.gns / TM W.P.(MD)No.16084 of 2019 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThe prayer in this writ petition is for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent/Power Grid Corporation of India Limited from erecting High Tension Electric Tower in S.F.Nos.525, 550/A3, B, C1, C2, C3 and 533/1, 534, 535 in Kuppam Village, Pugalur Circle, Aravakuruchi Taluk, Karur District, without obtaining a prior permission from the 1st respondent/District Collector.2.The petitioner appears to have addressed a representation in this regard to the District Collector on 09.07.2019 and has rushed to Court with the present writ petition without affording adequate opportunity to the District Collector to receive, process and conduct enquiry upon his representation.3.The petitioner has raised various objections in the writ petition itself with regard to the certainty of the High Tension Electric Power in the middle of his property.At best, the second respondent may be diverted to consider the objections put forth by the land owners in regard to the compensation sought by a land owner for any damage that may be caused by the proposed laying of High Tension wires.http://www.judis.nic.in 68.The District Collector before whom the representation of the petitioner is pending shall consider the same and after hearing both the respondents as well as the Land owner, shall pass suitable order on merits only on the aspect of compensation to the landowner, if any payable, for damage or inconvenience caused to the property or the residents therein by virtue of the action of the respondent in laying the High Tension Electric Tower.Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent agrees that the proposal, insofar as it relates to the property in question, shall be kept in abeyance till such time orders are passed in this matter by the fourth respondent as above.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.2.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamilnadu Electricity Board,http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai – 600 002. 73.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Karur District, Collectorate, Karur.

Sections cited: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code
H (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE PK Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 2017.12.13 11:14:05 +05'30'rt Learned G.A. prays for time to pass appropriate order of ou suspension within a week.h Let a typed copy of this order be sent to Shri N. Dubey, ig learned G.A. for communication and compliance.

Sections cited: Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT A. Barua, J.This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, Kalna, Burdwan, in Criminal Motion No. 87 of 2001 which affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Burdwan in C.R. Case No. 133 of 2000 under Section 498A, IPC.The wife Tripti Roy instituted the case being C.R. Case No. 143 of 2000 under Section 498A IPC of Monteswar Police Station.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said final report submitted by the police, Tripti Roy submitted a "Naraji" petition and on the basis of the petition, treating the same a petition of complaint the learned SDJM, Kalna, Burdwan took cognizance of the offence on 9.11.2000 and thereafter the learned Magistrate transferred the case of the file to the learned J.M., Kalna.The said case registered as C.R Case No. 133 of 2000 (T.R. No. 166 of 2000) on 31.1.2001 the learned Magistrate after examining the complaint and one witness found a prima facie case and issued summons against the petitioners under Section 498A of the IPC.The husband and others being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action by the learned Magistrate preferred the said criminal motion before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 4.8.2001 dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate.The complainant of the housewife who was allegedly tortured physically and mentally then made the instant "naraji" petition before the learned SDJM, Kalna with the allegation that in the said case being C.R. case No. 143 of 2000, in respect of which a final report has been given had been a product of collusion between the police and the accused persons and that she protested to the said investigation made by the police resulting in the final report and she wanted the case to be investigated afresh by a higher police officer and she further prayed for Justice so that the culprits that is the accused persons in the case that she had brought viz, G. R. Case No. 143 of 2000, be punished.

Sections cited: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.By orders made from time to time, the learned Magistrate authorised their detention, initially in police custody for twelve days and thereafter in jail custody for fifteen days at a stretch awaiting report, in final form, of investigation.In the meantime on 21-12-90 to be precise the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the five accused persons and on receipt thereof, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on that day:--taken Under Section 302/34, IPC.Put up on 26-12-90 for orders."The case was put up before the learned Magistrate on 26-12-1990 as directed and on subsequent dates also and various orders were passed.Ultimately, by an order dated 9-1-91, the learned Magistrate transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in accordance with Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.While the case was pending inquiry before the transferee Court, the opposite party, whose prayer for bail had earlier been rejected by the learned Magistrate, moved the City Sessions Court with a similar prayer.By his order dated 28-1-91, the learned Chief Judge of that Court granted bail to the opposite party after recording the following finding:--Haridas Das, J.

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code