Arjun Prasad Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
In an application for bail under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, the learned Single Judge, observing that a huge quantity of explosive substance was recovered from the petitioner's house, rejected the bail prayer without entertaining the defence of joint possession.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for bail to the petitioner is rejected at this stage.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9030 of 2015
Arjun Prasad Mehta, Son of late Talo Mahto, Resident of Dumraon, P.O. Dumraon, P.S. Ichak, District-Hazaribagh.
... .Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP -----
02/26.11.2015 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 921 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the campus from where the explosive substance was seized was in joint possession and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be implicated.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the explosive substances being recovered from his possession.
Whether the joint possession of the campus from where explosive substances were seized exonerates the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Arjun Prasad Mehta
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- B.A./9030/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court