Allowed

Lila Soren v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2015B.A./7235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, through a single judge, disposed of multiple bail and anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons in connection with various criminal cases under the Indian Penal Code, Essential Commodities Act, and animal cruelty laws. The court, while noting arguments regarding the nature of allegations and antecedents, granted bail to numerous petitioners subj

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; one anticipatory bail case adjourned for I.O. report.

Lila Soren Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 7151of 2015 Md. Nishar . .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶3

Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶4

Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 68 of 2015 arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 30 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 323 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. has been instituted against unknown persons and subsequently on the basis of confessional statement of Nasim Ansari, the name of petitioner has surfaced. It has further been submitted that neither has the petitioner been put on T.I.P. nor has any recovery been made from his possession and that he is in custody since 19.5.2015.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that on the confessional statement of co-accused petitioner's name has come in the present case.

¶7

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in connection with S.T. No. 68 of 2015 arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 30 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 323 of 2015.

¶8

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶9

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶11

B.A. No. 7153 of 2015

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Bhagat .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶13

Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶14

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 76 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1255 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the allegation that maize crops were looted from a truck, he has remained in custody since 26.6.2015.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was also one of the persons who intercepted the truck loaded with maize crop and looted the same.

¶17

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Godda in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 76 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1255 of 2015.

¶18

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶21

B.A. No. 7156 of 2015

¶22

Kali Ravidas 2. Sukhdeo Ravidas .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, APP ---

¶23

Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶24

Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶25

Petitioners are an accused in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 717 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable u/s 147/149/427/353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the allegation of demolition of boundary wall of the school, the petitioners have been implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that similarly situated co-accused Ravi Ravidas has been granted bail in B.A. No. 3989 of 2015 by this Court and that the petitioners are in custody since 5.8.2015.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners, but has not disputed the fact that similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail.

¶28

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 717 of 2014.

¶29

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶30

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶32

B.A. No. 7160 of 2015 Munna Sharma alias Yogendra Sharma .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶33

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶34

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 599 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶35

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation of assaulting the deceased with stone has been levelled against Arun Sharma. It has also been submitted that similarly situated coaccused Suresh Sharma and Pramod Sharma have been granted bail in B.A. No. 5016 of 2014 by this Court and that the petitioner is in custody since 4.8.2015.

¶36

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners, but has not disputed the aforesaid fact

¶37

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Godda in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 599 of 2014.

¶38

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶39

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶41

B.A. No. 7163 of 2015 Tarun Mal alias Tarun Mall .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶42

Heard Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi r, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶43

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 71 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

¶44

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage has been solemnized in the year 1990. It has also been submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and that the petitioner is in custody since 8.6.2015.

¶45

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner being the husband of informant is the main accused.

¶46

Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the period of custody, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Ghatshila in connection with Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 71 of 2015.

¶47

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶48

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶50

B.A. No. 7164 of 2015

¶51

Lakhindra Rai .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Deo, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶52

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Deo, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶53

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 467 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 452/386/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶54

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Sunil Hembram and that the petitioner is in custody since 16.6.2015.

¶55

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent.

¶56

Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as also the period of custody, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Dumka in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 467 of 2015.

¶57

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶58

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶60

B.A. No. 7165 of 2015

¶61

Amit Minz .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶62

Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶63

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 259 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 833 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 385/387/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶64

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been used by the miscreants to collect extortion money and that there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 3.7.2015.

¶65

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶66

Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 259 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 833 of 2015.

¶67

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶68

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7170 of 2015

¶70

Hitu Manjhi 2. Sikander Kunwar .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ---

¶71

Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶72

Heard Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶73

Petitioners are accused in connection with Saraiyahat (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 457 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable u/s 147,148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 337, 332, 333, 353, 307, 379, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶74

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no overt act alleged against the petitioners and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has further been submitted that some ancient silver coins were handed over by the petitioners to the Govt. officials, but at the instigation of some other persons, entire incident has been taken place and that petitioners are in custody since 7.4.2015.

¶75

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶76

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Saraiyahat (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 457 of 2012.

¶77

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶78

¶79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7186 of 2015

¶80

Samsuddin Khan 2. Mir Sahid .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari, APP ---

¶81

Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶82

Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned APP appearing for the State. Petitioners are accused in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No. 26 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 780 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 4 of Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.

¶83

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are driver and cleaner of the vehicle from which the animals were recovered and that they were taking the vehicle on the instruction of the owner and that petitioners are in custody since 17.7.2015.

¶84

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶85

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No. 26 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 780 of 2015.

¶86

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶87

¶88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶89

B.A. No. 7189 of 2015 Md. Tausif .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶90

Heard Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶91

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 146 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1998 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶92

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the recovery which is said to have been made was from a different place and that there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 3.7.2015

¶93

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has got several criminal antecedent which finds mention in the impugned order dated 4.7.2015.

¶94

Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as also the period of custody, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 146 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1998 of 2015.

¶95

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶96

¶97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶98

B.A. No. 7235 of 2015 Lila Soren .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. K. K. Mishra, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶99

Heard Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶100

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 646 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶101

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer, is of selling the kerosene oil and food grains in black market. It is further submitted that in the order it has not been mentioned as to which control order has been violated. It has further been submitted that P.D.S. Control Order, 2001 is not workable so far it relates to distribution of commodities relating to P.D.S., as because till date no such Order has been issued by the State Government. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 31.7.2015.

¶102

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶103

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Pakur in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 646 of 2015.

¶104

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶105

¶106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶107

B.A. No. 7240 of 2015

¶108

Shankar Saw .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶109

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶110

Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 52 of 2014 arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 83 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1268 of 2009 registered for the offences punishable u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶111

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not named in the F.I.R. and merely on suspicion he has been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that neither has the petitioner been put on Test Identification Parade nor has anything incriminating recovered from his possession and that the petitioner is in custody since 27.2.2012. It has also been submitted that similarly situated co-accused Narayan Saw has been granted bail in B.A. No. 880 of 2014 by this Court

¶112

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that on suspicion the petitioner was arrested in connection with the present case.

¶113

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in connection with S.T. No. 52 of 2014 arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 83 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1268 of 2009.

¶114

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶115

¶116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶117

B.A. No. 7242 of 2015

¶118

Madisha Bibi 2. Soni Khatoon .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 11th September , 2015

¶119

Heard Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned APP appearing for the State.

¶120

Petitioners are accused in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 72 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1242 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148,149, 341, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶121

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that initially one set of accused had assaulted the deceased and subsequently second set of accused also came and they had assaulted the deceased Noor Ahmad, as a result of which he had died. It has further been submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and that petitioners are in custody since 27.4.2015.

¶122

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that they are named in the F.I.R.

¶123

Regard being had to the fact that there is no specific allegation of assault against the the petitioners, they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 72 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1242 of 2015.

¶124

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶125

¶126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶127

A.B.A. No. 1251 of 2015

¶128

Rajendra Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, APP --- Order No. 04 Dated 11th September , 2015 ---

¶129

This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 64 of 2015 (G.R. No. 536 of 2015), pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag.

¶130

Petitioner is the owner of one of the vehicles and there is allegation of illegal transportation of coal.

¶131

Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Annexure-2 series to substantiate his argument that the soft coke which was being transported was under a valid challan and it was transported from Katyani Coke and Minerals. Since the petitioner claims that the coke was being transported under valid documents, let the I.O. of the case verify the documents, as relied upon by the petitioner and submit a report within a period of 10 days.

¶132

List this case on 30.9.2015.

¶133

The petitioner or his representative shall submit the documents along with a copy of this order to the I.O. By 15.9.2015.

¶134

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶135

¶136

Lila Soren v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lila Soren 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

Sri Krishna Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Debnu Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Akash Agarwal Alias Akash Kumar Agarwal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhola Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Ghosal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kali Ravidas and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand