Allowed

Devnandan Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2018B.A./846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners faced murder charges in connection with an altercation. The court allowed an application for bail in view of the facts, directing release upon furnishing a bail bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

.petitioners released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Devnandan Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 846 of 2018

¶3

Devnandan Ganjhu

¶4

Tulla Ganjhu @ Tuleshwar Singh

¶5

…. …. Petitioner(s).

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶8

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶9

05/09.04.2018

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioners are accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No. 313 of 2017 (G.R. No.1355 of 2017), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

¶12

Father of the informant was murdered. His dead body was found in the jungle. He was going to attend his duty. It is alleged that wrist watch was found at the place of occurrence which is alleged to be property of petitioner no.1. It is alleged that some altercation had taken place between these petitioners and the deceased.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners submits that save and except said altercation which had taken place 10 days prior to the date of occurrence and recovery of wrist watch which is alleged to be of petitioner no.1, there is nothing against these petitioners.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that wrist watch which was recovered near the place of occurrence allegedly belongs to these petitioners and the villagers said that similar types of wrist watch was being used by petitioner no.1. After going through the FIR he admits that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No. 313 of 2017 (G.R. No.1355 of 2017).

¶16

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶17

anjali/ C.P 3

Devnandan Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devnandan Ganjhu 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

Sanjai Sen Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Kumar Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Aftab Alam Alias Aftab Ahmad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kongress Bauri Vs Tandra Bhowmick And Ors.

Santosh Prasad Soni Alias Santosh Sonar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Chugli Mian Alias Nejamuddin Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand