This order dismisses an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. The court held the application not maintainable by applying the Supreme Court judgment in Lavesh Vs. State (2012) 8 SCC 730.
Application dismissed.
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. 2009 of 2018
Anand Soren …… Petitioner Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner :Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State :A.P.P.
03/Dated: 05/07/2018
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Musaboni P.S.
Case No. 21 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 280 of 2017 for the offence under sections 341, 324, 307, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Today, when the case is called out, learned A.P.P has submitted that process of 82 Cr.P.C has already been against the petitioner on 14.03.2018.
It appears that this anticipatory bail application has been filed on 31.03.2018 and interim protection was granted on 10.04.2018.
In view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lavesh Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 , this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable.
Satyarthi/-
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable in light of established Supreme Court precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lavesh Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi)Applied¶13
Lavesh Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 · Who else cites this
Anand Soren
The State of Jharkhand
Sushila Soren
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
