Dismissed

Chaitu Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2017A.B.A./3998/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner facing murder and arson charges for setting fire to a house causing deaths. The court refused the prayer due to the heinous nature of the crime despite the petitioner's contention of false allegations.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Chaitu Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3998 of 2017

¶2

Chaitu Oraon The State of Jharkha	.... .... …. Versus nd .... .... .... ------	Petitioner Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'B	LE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CH ------	OUDHARY
For the Petitioner	: Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Advocate
For the State	: Addl.P.P.
For the Informant	: Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha ------

¶3

03/13.07.2017 Apprehending his arrest in connection with Kairo P.S. Case No.09 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.223 of 2016 instituted under Sections 147/148/149/342/458/436/324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused set fire the house of the informant by which the father of the informant namely Govardhan Bhagat, Mado Bhagat and Sukminia Bhagat were charred to death and the petitioner and his paternal aunt were recovered by the police after sustaining burn injuries. Police has not yet submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Hence, the allegations against the petitioner are false. In the trial of the co-accused persons the informant has deposed that police has obtained his signature on a blank sheet of paper. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶6

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is allegation of serious nature of having committed a heinous against the petitioner hence, he ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶7

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and heinous nature of crime being committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶8

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶9

Animesh

Chaitu Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitu Oraon 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

Rajkumar Roy Alias Raj Kumar Rai Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Y N Yadav Alias Yog Nandan Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Satyendra Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Maghan Rana Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arun Saw And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand