Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
It appears to be clear that the accused Paromita Chakraborty lodged a case against the present defacto complainant about 7 months prior to lodging of this case against Paromita Chakraborty and others.It further appears to me that the aforesaid case lodged by Paromita Chakraborty is still pending and the defacto complainant is facing the trial.

Sections cited: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on the question of admission.This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19-11-2016 passed by 2nd A.S.J., Jaura, Distt.Morena in S.T. No. 299/2016, by which the charge under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 of I.P.C. has been framed against applicant no.2 Sunil whereas charge under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307/34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the remaining applicants.The prosecution story in short is that a F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant to the effect that at about 7:30 in the morning, he was going to his fields.When he reached in front of the house of Ramprakash,, then the applicants came there and were armed with Lathi, Farsa etc. The applicant Sunil was having a country-made pistol with him.vs. State of MP reported in ILR (2012) MP 1055 and Anil alias Moni Panda and Anr.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is well settled principle of law that in order to prima facie make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC, the nature of injuries is immaterial.It is submitted that the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place and the gunshot injury caused to the complainant clearly show that the applicants had an intention and knowledge to cause death of the complainant and there was an overt act on their part and thus, prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.I.A. Nos.11429/2016 and 11431/2016 are dismissed as being rendered infructuous.This is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants Neeraj S/o Sohanlal Yadav and Rahul S/o Sohanlal @ Rameshchandra ji.The present appellants suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that present appellants were on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to them.He further submits that in the medical report, doctor opined that injury would be dangerous to life if not treated properly.He further submits that in Cr.A. No.55/2017 accused-Annu @ Anup was granted bail.The present appellants were convicted with aid of Section 34 of IPC, while causing hurt to Vishal by Annu, who was granted bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After going through the record of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the appellants furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall be suspended and they be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.04.2017, and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(ALOK VERMA)

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent setting aside the order of detention passed on 2.11.06 in No60/BDFGISSV/2006 and produce the detenu by name Purushothaman before this Court and set the detenu at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai.For Petitioner : Mr. Arasuganesan For Respondents : Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl.Public ProsecutorP.K. MISRA, J The wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as the Act.The detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in four adverse cases.First adverse case relates to Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.517/1995 for an offence under Section 324 IPC, which is pending trial, second adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.234/2001 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w.149 IPC., third adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.191/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 307 IPC r/w.3(1) TNPPD Act and the fourth adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.257/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307, 302 IPC.In the aforesaid background, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that detenu was a Goonda within the meaning of the Act and it was necessary to detain him to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The detaining authority concluded:If he comes out on bail he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order."Similarly in paragraph 5(ii) it was indicated:"5(ii) I am aware that Thiru Purushothaman was arrested on 20.10.2006 by the Inspector of Police, Chunambedu Police Station and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate upto 04.11.2006 and lodged at Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner.He has not moved any bail petition so far.The District Magistrate & District Collector Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.

Sections cited: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code
Considering the fact that the respondent no. 7 is no longer in this world, the allegations levelled against her by the petitioner are unfortunate.I am also satisfied that the complaint lodged by the petitioner did not disclose any ingredient of robbery and, therefore, the Officer-in-Charge, Beleghata Police Station rightly did not insert Section 392, Indian Penal Code while registering the FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.Having regard to the report that has been filed, I am of the view that there is no need to keep the writ petition pending.-: 2 : -Commissioner of Police shall supervise the investigation that has been initiated in connection with Beleghata Police Station Case No. 190 dated 20th May, 2014 under Sections 448/427/379/114, Indian Penal Code and shall ensure that an appropriate police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed before the Magistrate at an early date.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.( Dipankar Datta, J. )

Sections cited: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 27.7.2020, in connection with Crime No.208/2020, registered at Police Station Badi, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 19.7.2020, complainant-Amar Singh S/o Bhurelal was sitting near shop of one Raju.Thereafter, accused/applicant along with other co-accused armed with Axe and stick reached there and assaulted injured-Amar Singh.Allegedly, accused/applicant was armed with Axe.Thereafter, case has been registered against the accused/applicant and other co-accused for the aforesaid offence.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no case is made out under Section 326 or 307 of IPC.Actually, the brother of complainant-Amar Singh took the wife of co-accused Banti, due to this some dispute occurred.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application.The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Vi r u s disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.

Sections cited: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 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
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.308/14 registered at Police Station Dhanoura, District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 354-A, 354-B, 323, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.The applicant no.1 belongs to scheduled caste, whereas the applicant no.2 is a news correspondent.On 17.12.2014, the prosecutrix, her husband and her son have threatened the applicants in the Tahsil Court and also assaulted them.He has also filed a complaint to the Tahsildar Seoni on the very same day and therefore Tahsildar, Seoni directed for enquiry.FIR is lodged with the delay of at least ten hours and it is a typed written document, which appears to be prepared by some law knowing person.No explanation of delay in the FIR has been shown by the prosecutrix.According to the story of the prosecutrix, she was going on the motorcycle with her son and then, the applicants detained them and committed such offences.When there was an enmity between the applicants and the prosecutrix, no such offence could be done by the applicant especially, when son of the prosecutrix was present.It would be apparent that a false FIR was lodged against the applicants.No offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicants and therefore, no prohibition of Section 18 of that Act would be applicable in the present case.There is no allegation against the applicants that they tried to disrobed the prosecutrix.No offence under Section 354-B of the IPC is made out against the applicants, whereas offence under Section 354-A of the IPC and other remaining offences are bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants for bailable offences on a false FIR.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.

Sections cited: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
24.09.13 Item No. 36 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 36And In the matter of: Swapan Bose Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Subhasish Pachhal Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee For the Petitioner Mr. Sandip Kundu For the Complainant Mrs. Zarin N. Khan For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 351 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013 under Sections 447/461/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

Sections cited: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
shell are as follows:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRAWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?By that order the Ld.ASJ confirmed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/-; and rigorous imprisonment for one year with Crl.No.163/2008 Page 1 of 9 fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC.The facts in a nut-No.163/2008 Page 1 of 9He injured both the persons riding the scooter, but the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries.PW-8, Bijender Kumar, son of the deceased, who was driving the scooter, was an eye witness to the accident.Considering the entire evidence produced by the prosecution the petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate.The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Sessions Court, holding that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has faced the rigors of trial for nearly twelve years and has already served nearly five months of his sentence.The petitioner was a driver of a commercial vehicle.He was required to be on the wheels almost whole of the day.No.163/2008 Page 8 of 9 court of Sessions has decided against the petitioner.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sections cited: Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code
They also caused disturbance to the normal traffic.Thirumurugan asked his party members to damage the police vehicle and buses and argued with the police personnels.Though some of them including Thirumurugan were secured and kept in a MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 7515, they pushed the police personnel and rushed near the step of the bus and damaged glasses of the bus with stick and portraits.[Order of the Court was made by P.KALAIYARASAN, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking to quash the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 28.05.2017 in BCDFGISSSV No.309/2017 against the detenu Dyson, aged about 27 years, s/o.It is averred in the petition that Inspector of Police, Law and Order D5 Marina Police Station as sponsoring authority filed an affidavit before the Detaining Authority alleging that the detenu involved in the following adverse cases i.Coimbatore City R.S.Puram Police Station Crime No.337/2013 registered under Sections 143, 188, 342, 353 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC.E.2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No. 1095/2015 registered under Sections 188, 143 and 285 IPC iii.J.1 Saidapet Police Station Crime No.745/2016 registered under Sections 188 and 143 IPC.E.3 Teynampet Police Station Crime No.1125/2016 registered under Sections 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.Further, it is averred that D5 Sub-Inspector of Police, Marina Police Station lodged a Special Report wherein it is alleged that marina beach zone area was already not permitted to conduct public meeting, demonstrations and other functions and in spite of elaborate bandhobust arrangement based on the security arrangement on 21.05.2017 at 6 p.m, the detenu and others under the leadership of Thirumurugan, Chief Co-ordinator, May-17 movement wrongfully assembled near Nethaji statue, marina beach and raised slogans in support of srilankan tamils and also banned LTTE movement violating the orders of the police.On the report given by the Sub-Inspector, a case was registered in D5 Marina Police Station in Cr.No.480 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 188, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 7 (1) (a) of CLA Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.

Sections cited: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019J, aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.9695 of 2019 12.11.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is innocent he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379, 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused and she has nothing to do with the crime.He also submitted that even on earlier three occasions, the second respondent lodged a complaint and the same has been closed after enquiry.Thereafter the second respondent filed private complaint and the same has been forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Based on the same, the first respondent registered a case and also during the pendency of the same, she appeared before the first respondent and gave statements along with the entire evidence showing that the petitioner is not involved in any crime as alleged by the first respondent.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Further the first respondent is directed to consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.11.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Police Station Madurai City2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.

Sections cited: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
The restoration application, CRAN 2338 of 2018, is allowed.CRM 1028 of 2018 is allowed.15 md.Mr. P.K. Datta, Sr.Advocate Mr. S. Deb Roy, Advocate .. for the Petitioner Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Advocate .. for the State Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioner was not represented on August 20, 2018 when CRM 1028 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated August 20, 2018 is recalled and CRM 1028 of 2018 is restored to the file.In the matter of:-1 2 In the matter of:-The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Taltala Police Station Case No.126/17 dated 22.09.2017 under Sections 498A/406/419/323/341/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act.At the outset, the State produces the report from the investigating officer confirming that some SMS messages have been sent by the petitioner to the de facto complainant during the pendency of the present proceedings.The petitioner says that it would not be appropriate to consider such matter while considering the present prayer since no complaint in such regard has been filed.On the basis of the material evident against the petitioner from the case diary, there does not appear to be any impediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.However, the petitioner has to provide for the basic maintenance of the wife.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.Further, if the petitioner sends any threatening or otherwise objectionable message on the wife's phone or puts up any inappropriate post on the social media, the de facto complainant and the State will be entitled to seek cancellation of the petitioner's bail.3 4 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.) 4

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code