The High Court at Ranchi rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in a theft case. The petitioner claimed innocence and lack of recovered incriminating articles; the state argued co-accused involvement. The judge held no inclination to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is 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.1791 of 2017
Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Ravi Das …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. L.K.Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P ----- 04/Dated: 12/04/2017
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Giddi P.S. Case No. 62/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 4823/2014, the case registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no recovery of any incriminating articles or alleged stolen articles. There is no material against the petitioner except confessional statement.
Learned A.P.P while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner referring to para 47 and 49 of the case diary submitted that petitioner along with other co-accused have committed theft.
Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is hereby rejected.
( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Saket/Shahid
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a theft case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Ram @ Mahendra Ravi Das
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
