The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving robbery, murder, and unlawful possession of arms. The court, considering the serious nature of allegations and statements of complicity, rejected the prayer for relief.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected. Petitioner not enlarged on bail.
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.817 of 2017
Dilip Munda …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P ----- 04/Dated: 17/04/2017
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 256/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 4298/2016, the case registered under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
In view of the nature of allegation made against the petitioner and also the statement made at para-47 of the case diary regarding complicity of this petitioner in the present crime, I am not inclined to enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/Shahid
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving murder and cheating.
Whether the alleged complicity of the petitioner warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip Munda
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
