Dismissed

Sudhanshu Ranjan Alias Chhotu Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2015A.B.A./1926/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice D.N. Upadhyay rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Sudhanshu Ranjan, an accused in an extortion case, after the State opposed the prayer by highlighting the petitioner's alleged association with an extremist organization member.

What did the court decide?

None. The prayer for bail made under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is stood rejected.

Sudhanshu Ranjan Alias Chhotu Singh Vs The State Of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 1926 of 2015 Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu Singh. … ...Petitioner

¶2

-Versus-

¶3

The State of Jharkhand.

¶4

… ...Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. B.M.Tripathi, Sr. Advocate. For the State: A.P.P.

¶7

03/18.08.2015 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 384/385/386/387 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 17(i) (ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 29/2015, corresponding to G.R.No. 351/2015, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

¶8

It reveals that Bindeshwar Ganjhu a member of extremist organization known as T.P.C. with the help of his associates used to collect 'rangdari' from the coal purchaser, who used to lift coal from Amrapali Project of C.C.L. After receiving such information, the place of occurrence was raided and the vehicle belonging to accused persons have been seized.

¶9

It is submitted that the petitioner has no concern either with any extremist organization or with any member of that organization. He is a business man and also an income tax payee. He has been doing his business after having cash credit facility from the Bank. No witness has come forward to say that he had demanded 'rangdari' from him. Some of the accused persons having similar allegation have been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶10

Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that witnesses examined in the case diary have clearly stated that accused Bindeshwar Ganjhu collects levy against dispatch of coal and petitioner happens to be associate of said Bindeshwar Ganjhu.

¶11

Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected.

¶12

[D.N.Upadhyay,J.]

¶13

P.K.S.

Sudhanshu Ranjan Alias Chhotu Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanshu Ranjan Alias Chhotu Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Akhtar Hussain Alias MD Akhtar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shamsher Qureishi and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sirajuddin Alias Narayan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Urmila Devi and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand