Kesaw Dubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on account of dispute as the petitioner’s father was an employee of the informant’s husband and there was a dispute regarding payment of the salary and this case has been lodged with an ulterior motive. That he is custody since February, 2016.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses in paras 7,8,17 and 18 of the case diary have categorically stated that this petitioner had uprooted the mango saplings and removed four bundles of electric coils, motor pipes and tables, etc. On query the learned APP has conceded that the looted articles have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶13

Heard. Considering the nature of allegation and period of custody, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his 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, Deoghar, in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.29 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.201 of 2016.

¶14

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶15

Tarun/-

Kesaw Dubey v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesaw Dubey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narain Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Saw Alias Sanjay Sah Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ganduwa Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitender Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Mahto Alias Dayanand Mahto Alias Vijay Matho Vs The State Of Jharkhand