Allowed

Loknath Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2022A.B.A./2127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing a case under Sections 366A and 34 of the IPC. The order directed surrender within two weeks and issuance of a bail bond with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within two weeks with bail bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, compliance with conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Loknath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 2127 of 2022

¶3

Loknath Das 2. Amit Das @ Tarak Das 3. Champa das .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

Oral Order 05/ Dated :10.08.2022

¶6

The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 84 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.410 of 2004 [S.T. No.07(A) of 2009] for the offence registered under Sections 366A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, is pressed into motion.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that earlier process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was issued against these petitioners which was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2109 of 2021. After quashing of the order, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on the ground that other co-accused person namely Rinku Miyan was put on trial in S.T. No.57 of 2005, has been acquitted and Jayant Mukharjee has also been acquitted in S.T. No.07 of 2009. It is submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were not named in the F.I.R. and there is no allegation against them.

¶8

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that Amit Kumar Das is named in the F.I.R. and there is direct and specific allegation against them.

¶9

Considering the submissions made, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶10

The petitioners will co-operate in the investigation and will appear under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as and when required and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶12

Anit

Loknath Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loknath Das 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

Mohammad Sikandar Ali Alias MD Sikandar Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Thakur Alias Vijay Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Soma Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Shekhar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand