Bail petition for petitioner accused of dacoity (Sections 392, 395, 412 IPC) was rejected. The High Court noted the recovery of a Bolero vehicle linked to the petitioner's confessional statement and dismissed the prayer for bail.
Prayer for bail stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.1306 of 2015
Surajmal Paswan
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2 For the State : A. P.P.
2/07.05.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.59 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.745 of 2014, S.T. No.369 of 2014, for the offence under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case relates to dacoity, in which a Bolero vehicle was taken away by the culprits.
The impugned order shows that the petitioner's confessional statement has led to the recovery of the Bolero vehicle.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner prayer for bail stands rejected.
(H. C. Mishra, J)
R.Kumar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in a dacoity case involving Sections 392, 395 and 412 IPC.
Whether the recovery of the Bolero vehicle linked to the petitioner's confessional statement warrants denying bail.
Surajmal Paswan
The State of Jharkhand
H.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
