Allowed

Yogendra Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2021B.A./2237/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners (accused in an IPC and Arms Act case) who undertook to remove stamp defects and cooperate with the trial, directing the State to ensure similar negligence does not recur.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail on ₹25,000 bond with sureties to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Chatra, conditioned on cooperating with the trial.

Yogendra Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2237 of 2021

¶2

Yogendra Ganjhu 2. Niranjan Kumar Bhokta … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

For the Petitioners : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Addl. P.P.

¶5

02 /04.03.2021 Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 51 of 2020 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 449, 323, 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act and Sections 17(i)(ii) of CLA Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the member of the banned MCC Extremist Organization committed murder of the wife of the informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next sub mitted that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R., yet without putting him on T.I.P., charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of their selfconfessional statement. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 24.10.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that he has not been briefed by anybody from the State and he does not know whether the State has been informed about the case.

¶11

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of

¶12

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 51 of 2020 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case.

¶13

The Principal Law Secretary, Jharkhand this is directed to ensure that such callous Addl. P.P. should not appear before this Court in future.

¶14

The Registry General of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Law Secretary, Jharkhand for compliance.

¶15

Pappu/

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Yogendra Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra 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

Mithilesh Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Markus Bhengra Alias Shooter Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Lohar Alias Suresh Kumar Lohara Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jageshwar Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mustakim Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand