Allowed

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Dec 2020B.A./9439/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued an order granting bail to the petitioner in a case concerning rash and negligent driving causing death. The petitioner undertook to remove defects mentioned by the stamp reporter and cooperate with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, conditioned on cooperation with the trial.

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9439 of 2020

¶2

Krishna Kumar Yadav … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Dubey, Addl. P.P.

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 10.12.2020

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

¶10

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chanho P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 registered under sections 279/304 and charge sheet has been submitted under section 279/304/353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has caused the death of the deceased –Constable Vijay Singh Banra by rash and negligent driving of TATA 407 vehicle. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner had no motive of killing the deceased. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.06.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

¶15

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Chanho P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu-Gunjan/

Krishna Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Yadav 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

Sonu Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Shah Alias Pintu Kumar Khan Alias Wasim Akram Khan Alias Wasim Khan Alias Pintu Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishnu Munda Alias Surju Alias Sukhram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bittu Sonar Vs the State of Jharkhand