BALIYA TURI Ž BALI TURI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - R.MUKHOPADHYAY (A.P.P.), ,NEHALA SHARMIN — Cr.A(SJ)/710/2009

Disposed: Contested--Dismissed with modification on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010009432009

Filing Number

Cr.A(SJ)/14707/2009

Filing Date

30-Jul-2009

Registration No

Cr.A(SJ)/710/2009

Registration Date

30-Jul-2009

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

CONVCITION WITH JAIL-IMPRISONMENT UPTO 3 YEARS. ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed with modification

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALIYA TURI Ž BALI TURI

    Adv. ASHISH VERMA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA, ,NIKESH KUMAR SINHA,NIKESH KUMAR SINHA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA,NIKESH KUMAR SINHA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA,NIKESH KUMAR SINHA,SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - R.MUKHOPADHYAY (A.P.P.), ,NEHALA SHARMIN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF

    Case Summary: Baliya Turi v. State of Jharkhand Decision: The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal on merits, upholding the conviction under Section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. However, the court modified the sentence by granting the appellant probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, directing his release on a Rs. 5,000 bond with surety for one year instead of the three-year imprisonment imposed by the trial court. Key Reasoning: The court found the conviction justified based on medical evidence of injuries sustained by two victims and credible eyewitness testimony. However, considering the appellant's good character, first offense, and the spontaneous nature of the scuffle arising from a domestic dispute, the court exercised discretion to grant probation rather than impose imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  9. 27-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  10. 13-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  11. 23-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  13. 02-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  14. 18-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  15. 04-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  16. 14-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  17. 10-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  18. 26-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  19. 19-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  20. 12-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  21. 29-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 30-Jul-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.A(SJ)/710/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Baliya Turi v. State of Jharkhand Decision: The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal on merits, upholding the conviction under Section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. However, the court modified the sentence by granting the appellant probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, directing his release on a Rs. 5,000 bond with surety for one year instead of the three-year imprisonment imposed by the trial court. Key Reasoning: The court found the conviction justified based on medical evidence of injuries sustained by two victims and credible eyewitness testimony. However, considering the appellant's good character, first offense, and the spontaneous nature of the scuffle arising from a domestic dispute, the court exercised discretion to grant probation rather than impose imprisonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case