Laxman Honhaga And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
A bail application was dismissed because four out of five prosecution witnesses had already been examined by the time of the rejection, relying on prior precedent.
A bail application was dismissed because four out of five prosecution witnesses had already been examined by the time of the rejection, relying on prior precedent.
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, RANCHI B.A. No. 5139 of 2017
1.Laxman Honhaga, S/o Late Jamadar Honhaga, 2.Birua Doraiburu, S/o Late Sura Doraiburu
Both residents of Village: Dokatta, P.O.:Jhinkpani, P.S.:Tonto, District: Singhbhum West. ..... Petitioners
District: Singhbhum West. ..... Petitioners --Versus-The State of Jharkhand …. Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, APP
6/ 12.09.2017 Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The petitioners have been made accused in Hatgamharia P.S.Case No.17/2016, corresponding to G.R.No.284/2016 registered under section 392 IPC and they are in judicial custody since 22.08.2016.
The learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
By the time the bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners were rejected on 16.11.2016, out of five prosecution witnesses, four had already been examined. In the above facts, it would be highly improper to entertain this bail application [refer , “ Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI through its Director” reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 ] and accordingly, it is dismissed.
( Shree Chandrashekhar, J. )
SI/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to entertain the bailapplicationafterfouroutoffiveprosecutionwitnesseshadbeenexamined.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI through its DirectorReferred¶10
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 · Who else cites this
Laxman Honhaga
Birua Doraiburu
State of Jharkhand
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court