Chandan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected the bail application of petitioners accused of murder under IPC sections 302, 201, and 34. Despite arguments of false allegations, the court found the case unsuitable for bail due to serious charges and evidence, but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
What did the court decide?
Regular bail of the petitioners was rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5980 of 2020
Chandan Prasad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 5669 of 2020 ------ Laxman Sao @ Laxman Prasad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.03 Dated- 05.01.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.23 of 2020 registered under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the co-accused persons have murdered the deceased –Dashrath Sao. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have no connection with the alleged offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are to be admitted to bail in a murder case.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Chandan Prasad
- petitioner
Laxman Sao
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- B.A./5980/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court