Allowed

Mithu Gope v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 May 2017B.A./3445/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed bail to the petitioner, who was charged under the Arms Act and C.L.A. Act. The court observed the petitioner was falsely implicated as no weapon was recovered from him, and directed his release against a bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail by furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Mithu Gope Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3445 of 2017

¶2

Mithu Gope, son of Sharma Gope, resident of Village-Kesipara, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, District-Gumla (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P. -----

¶6

02/05.05.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R., yet his name was allegedly disclosed by co-accused Parmeshwar Gope as amongst the persons who fled away from the place of occurrence. It is alleged that co-accused Parmeshwar Gope was apprehended by the police along with one loaded country-made rifle. No arm/ammunition has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.09.2016 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶9

The learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be released 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 the

¶11

learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, in connection with S.T. No. 192 of 2015, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 243 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 663 of 2013, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be physically present before the trial court as and when his presence is required, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶12

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶13

Manish

Mithu Gope v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithu Gope 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

Jasim Khan And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anand Singh Alias Anand Singh Sardar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Lohra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Khushmarin Tirkery Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Ashique Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Faiyaz Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand