Fawazzx/trainnnn huggingface dataset:
Submissions were made on the appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Appellant is facing trial before the Special Court, SC/ST Act in respect of Crime No.194/2015 registered at Police Station Pandrinath, Indore for committing offence under Sections 341, 294, 506 and 195-B of IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)It has also been submitted that appellant was infact in jail in respect of some other case.This Court vide order dated 24.04.2019 had directed to file certified copy of the order in which he was granted bail.Learned counsel for the appellant has filed certified copy of the order-sheets in which it has been mentioned in order dated 21.12.2016 that appellant is in jail.Let document pertaining to that be filed before next occasion.Matter be listed after a week.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 01/05/2019

Sections cited: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER S. Ashok Kumar, J.This revision petition has been fled by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam passed in Crime No. 571 of 1999 of Theni Police Station.The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is the de facto complainant and he lodged a complaint against the S. I. of Police of Theni Police Station which was registered as Crime No. 571/1999 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324, IPC.After investigation a final report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was filed on 2-8-1999 before the Court and a final order dated 26-8-1999 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate.Learned Magistrate by order dated 11-3-2003 rejected the said application on the ground that part of the record shall not be given under Section 173(4) Cr.The accused in the complaint given by the petitioner which was referred, is the S. I. of Police.

Sections cited: Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code
This is repeat (Second) bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.First bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.12.2017 in M.Cr.The applicant is in custody since 22.10.2017 in connection with Crime No.160/2017 registered at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 394, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.As per prosecution on 20.4.2017, the applicant Pappu @ Kabir called the complainant on mobile phone and said that he discovered a gold brick, which was buried in nearby land and he offered the same to the complainant.Thereafter, complainant met Pappu @ Kabir at Vidisha road and he offered him the said brick, for consideration of Rs. 4,60,000/-.After the said deal, complainant and his brother reached there then Pappu @ Kabir and six other persons took their bag of money and, along with that gold brick, ran away from the spot.Thereafter, on the report of complainant, case for offence punishable under Section of 420 of IPC was registered.During investigation after taking the statement of complainant and other witnesses offence punishable under Section 395, 397 and 394 have been added.Other co-accused who have been arrested have been released on bail.Conclusion of trial will take time.He is a permanent resident of district Raisen and there is no chance of his absconding.He is ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.03.08 16:53:29 +05'30'

Sections cited: Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
DATE : 02nd JANUARY, 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the First Information Report (In short "F.I.R.") in Crime No. 124 of 2019, registered at Police Station, Patoda, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'I.P.C.')2. Facts leading to this application are that the informant Sahabhat/respondent No. 2 herein married Mohammad Ubed Abdul Bashid Kazi on 6.1.2019, according to Muslim rites.that the informant Sahabhat/respondent No. 2::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::reside at Latur.Applicant No. 5 is the married sister of husband of respondent No. 2, applicant No. 6 is the husband of applicant No. 5 and both of them reside at Solapur.Applicant No. 7 is the uncle of husband of respondent No.It is alleged by the informant that soon after marriage the husband's parents started ill-treating respondent No. 2, saying that she should bring Rs. Ten Lac, to enable them to purchase a Plot and on that count she was subjected to beating.She was also abused in filthy language.She called her relative, Sayyed Sajjid Hamid and her grand-father,::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 ::: 5 criapplnno2303-J .19 Sayyed Hamid Sayyed Maheboob and they also tried to convince the applicants and husband's parents to treat the respondent No. 2 well but, the applicants did not budge but kept on demanding amount of Rs. Ten Lacs.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::parents had been to her house on 10.3.2019, at 2.00 p.m. They demanded Rs. Ten Lacs to be brought from her parents and subjected her to physical and mental ill-treatment.Thereafter, she lodged complaint against accused persons in Police Station, Patoda, on the basis of which, offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. has been registered.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::On perusal of F.I.R., it is noticed that the allegations made against the applicants are vague in nature.No specific act is attributed against any of the applicants.It is vaguely mentioned that all the applicants subjected her to ill-treatment on account of failure to bring Rs. Ten Lacs from her parents.Moreover, the record produced by the applicants i.e. Adhar Cards and Ration Cards show that applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 reside at Latur, applicant Nos. 5 and 6 reside at Solapur and applicant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are reside at Pune.The husband of respondent No. 2 is the resident of Patoda, District; Beed.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) mahajansb/::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
None for the victim though served.This appeal for bail is directed against the order dated 5.09.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 36/2017, whereby the application of accused/appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed.The appellant has been arrested on 30.03.2017 in connection with crime no. 66/2017 registered by P.S. Lakhanwada, District Seoni under Sections 363, 366 (ka), 376 (2) (i), 376 (2) (j), 323, 294, 506/34 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 (i) (ba) (i) and Section 3 (2) (5) of S.C./S.T.As per the prosecution case, on the date of offence, the prosecutrix was 15 years and 3 months old minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste.About an year and half before the date of incident appellant Raju Prajapati enticed her on the promise of marriage and took inside a nullah and raped her.He threatened that if she disclosed the matter to anyone, he would kill her.Thereafter, the appellant established the physical relation with her on four or five occasions.When the prosecutrix became eight months pregnant, she disclosed the matter to her parents.Thereafter, appellant Raju threatened them not to disclose the matter to anyone and took her to his house and kept her as his wife.She gave birth to a male child.Thereafter, the appellant used to consume liquor and harassed and beat up the prosecutrix.The family members of petitioner asked her to leave the house.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the element of coercion or enticement were missing in the case.Actually, the petitioner had married the prosecutrix.She lived in his house as his wife and gave birth to the child of the appellant.Ultimately, due to differences with the appellant, she left and now this case of marital discord is converted into one under Section 376 of I.P.C. The appellant has been in custody since 30th March, 2017 and charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant; in the opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to allow this appeal and release appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar Prajapati on bail.It is directed that appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar Prajapati 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 Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE vy

Sections cited: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 398 of 2020 is rejected.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 10:54:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 10:54:57 :::

Sections cited: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government against an acquittal of two accused Kaloo Khan and Jaisar Khan who were tried on a charge under Section 353, Penal Code by a Magitrate of Suri.The prosecution case was that a watcher constable of the district enforcement branch saw three carts driven by the two accused and another man Salu Khan each carrying six tins of kerosene oil.He asked them if they had permits and as they could produce none he directed them to proceed to Dubrajpur thana, showing his warrant of appointment.The cartmen attempted to bribe him but he refused to be tempted whereupon they in turn threatened to assault him.He then went on his bicycle and brought two chowkidar Nanda Lal and Patal and took the carts to the neighbouring village.Thereafter they proceeded towards the thana.As they reached the junction where the road branched off towards Adampore, the carters ignoring the constable turned their carts down the branch road to escape.The constable endeavoured to unyoke the cattle whereupon Kaloo Khan struck him and the carts began to move again.He was again assaulted by Kaloo and Jaisar.There was a further assault and finally the cartmen left with the carts and went to Adampore.The accused were eventually arrested and were sent up for trial in connection with the possession of the kerosene tins.He was entitled to arrest them and take them to the thana.The accused therefore in endeavouring to escape and in assaulting the constable when he endeavored to prevent them from escaping were guilty of an offence under Section 353, Penal Code.

Sections cited: Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code
The extradition was based on four (4) FIRs out of the said thirty-three (33) FIRs and in the subsequent _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WP (Crl.) No.375 of 2007 Page 1 of 36 period during 1995 to 1999 six (6) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner.On 2.1.2002 the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide GSR6(E).Two (2) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner being FIR Nos.33/03 and 125/03 though according to the petitioner they arise out of the same incident.On 29.12.2006, FIR No.104/06 was registered at P.S. Lodhi Road under Section 3 of the said Act against the petitioner and another accused.Commissioner of Police and Others decided on 1.12.2006 were called.LJ 1474 to the effect that once a matter has been considered by the Supreme Court on earlier occasions as a result of which consideration sections have been held to be valid, a new ground of challenge even on the basis of approach made in later decisions of the Supreme Court may not be available before this Court to the petitioner.

Sections cited: Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.304 of 2015, on the first respondent.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Sections cited: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Poonamallee, in Crime No.38 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2011 for the offences under Sections, 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.168 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate-1, Poonamallee.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.Heard Mr.It is seen from the charge there are specific avernments to attract the offences as against the petitioner.Further it is also seen that there are materials to connect the petitioner to the offences.More over all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.The petitioner at liberty to raise all the points before the Court below during the trial.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 (Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors.) stated in para 4,5, and 9 may be made hereunder.However, considering the petitioner being lady and her age as well as thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., lbm case is of the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigation Officer, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6875 2019 and CRL.M.P.Nos.3783 and 3784 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in

Sections cited: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
It is alleged that he exhorted other co-accused persons.It would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.As many as 6 accused persons are implicated by the victim.No common intention or object of the applicant is established with other co- accused persons.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to crime No.276/2014 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.The victim Madan had sustained 9 injuries.Out of such injuries, no injury was found fatal or grave.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the victim by any weapon.Prima facie no offence punishable M.Cr.C.No.17178/2014 under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for bailable offences.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.C.No.17178/2014 This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra

Sections cited: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 3455 of 2018 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.06.2018 in connection with Dankuni Police Station Case No. 399 of 2017 dated 06.11.2017 under Sections 498A/325/354B/376/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Gita Debi & Ors.......... petitioners Mr. Mahammad Mahmud, Mr. Mahfuzus Salam Mollah, Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya ...for the petitioners Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was a family dispute and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further 2 condition that they shall appear before the Court below within a period of fortnight from date and shall pray for regular bail.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Sections cited: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:The ground case alleged against the detenu is registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station in Crime No.219 of 2013 foroffences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by theorder of detention, the present petition has been filed.Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner to interfere with the order of detention, he questioned the detentionorder as there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, when hisbail application was already dismissed and in the absence of any material tosupport, either in the ground case or in a similar cases, regarding thelikelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has notarrived at any subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned order and therefore,the order is vitiated in law.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on theabove submission and perused the records.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent,detaining the detenu, Jerin Joseph @ Diwan, aged 25 years, S/o.John Bosco, madein P.D.O.No.15/2013 dated 03.06.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petitionis allowed.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Sections cited: Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code, Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code
i) Criminal Bail Application No. 2878 of 2019 is allowed;ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 ::: Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3 11-BA-2878-19.doc connection with C. R. No. 527 of 2019 registered with Bhosari Police Station, Pune on furnishing P.R. bond for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10.00 am.to 12.00 noon, till further order.iv) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::

Sections cited: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code