Allowed

Shiva Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Nov 2015B.A./9031/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in an Arms Act case for which he was in custody since September 4, 2015. No incriminating articles were recovered from his conscious possession; the recovered vehicle belonged to another person. Court granted bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of similar amounts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties of like amount each.

Shiva Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9031 of 2015

¶2

Shiva Kachhap, Son of late Krishna Kachhap, Resident of Rinpas Warder Lane, P.O. & P.S. Kankey, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶3

... .Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ---Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Moti Gope, APP -----

¶7

02/26.11.2015 Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 380 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 5389 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under sections 25(1-b)a,26 of the Arms Act.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating articles were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the vehicle, which was apprehended, belongs to one Dr. Nishant Patel.

¶10

It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 4.9.2015.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to paragraphs 102 to 106 of the case diary.

¶12

It has been submitted that the statement of Dr. Nishant Patel recorded at paragraph 75 of the case diary coupled with the statement of the witnesses recorded in other paragraphs suggest that although Dr. Nishant Patel was the registered owner of the vehicle but installments were paid by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner being the real owner could not be absolved from his criminal liability.

¶13

Considering the fact that no incriminating articles were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the registered owner of the vehicle was some one else, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri N.K. Vishwakarma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, in connection with Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 380 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 5389 of 2015.

¶14

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶15

Rakesh/

Shiva Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Kachhap 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

Jhulan Naik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikki Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyender Kumar Alias Sateyndra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through C B I

Kanhai Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand