Petitioner filed a second anticipatory bail application in connection with alleged offences under IPC Sections 447 and 406. The Court rejected the prayer as no new grounds were established following a previous order.
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. 3399 of 2019
Gurudas Manjhi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.
04/Dated: 19/07/2019
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 209 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1202 of 2017, registered for the offence under Sections 447 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 998 of 2018, but the same was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2018 by this Court on merits. Thereafter, second anticipatory bail application has been filed.
Heard the parties.
In view of the fact that no fresh ground is made out, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Sunil/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's bail application should be admitted given the lack of fresh grounds after a prior rejection.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurudas Manjhi
The State of Jharkhand
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
