In a bail application, this court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, holding that the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant its grant in the specified offences.
Prayer for anticipatory bail 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 A.B.A. No. 2420 of 2014
Manik Mandal ...… Petitioner Versus
5/19.1.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajmahal P.S Case No.717 of 2013 corresponding to G.R No.1220 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 307, 450, 379, 386, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have fired pistol upon the informant and also to have demanded levy and threatened the informant and his family members hurling bombs.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Manik Mandal. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
BS/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences under Sections 307, 450, 379, 386, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substance Act.
Whether the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Manik Mandal
The State of Jharkhand
Kalu Mandal
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
