Allowed

Upendar Ojha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2019A.B.A./68/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging abetment of suicide. The informant, not opposing the prayer, characterized the FIR as lodged due to misunderstanding. The court granted anticipatory bail contingent on police arrest or surrender within four weeks, requiring a bail bond and two sureties under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted contingent on arrest or surrender within four weeks, requiring payment of Rs. 25,000 as bail bond and two sureties of like amount to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega

Upendar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 68 of 2019

¶3

Upendar Ojha @ Upendra Ojha … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand …

¶5

Opposite Party

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Prakash, Adv. For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶8

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv.

¶9

02 / 16.01.2009

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 132 of 2018 registered under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the suicide of the deceased who died in her paternal house. It is further submitted that fardbeyan has been instituted on the basis of some misunderstanding. The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence i.e. the paternal house of the deceased where the alleged occurrence took place. It is further submitted that after realizing the mistake, the informant does not oppose the prayer of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The learned counsel for the informant submits that in fact because of some misunderstanding, FIR has been lodged and the informant does not want to proceed against the petitioner as he is the son-in-law of the informant. Learned Addl. PP submits that in view of the development, he does not have any objection to the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail

¶15

on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 132 of 2018 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶16

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶17

Smita/-

Upendar Ojha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendar Ojha 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

Narayan Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Yadav Alias Vishal Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Onkar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand