The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The single-judge bench held that the petitioner was implicated on the confession of another accused, with incriminating articles recovered, warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail 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. 1288 of 2018
Santosh Mandal. ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. …. Opposite Party
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate For the State : APP. --------
06/11-05-2018 Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Taratand P.S. Case No. 52 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3427 of 2017.
It appears that one Phulchand Kumar Mandal was apprehended and on his confession, the petitioner has been implicated. It further appears that from the possession of Phulchand Kumar Mandal, several incriminating articles apart from the Aadhar Card of the petitioner were recovered, which would show the complicity of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a criminal case.
Santosh Mandal
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
