Dismissed

Sanika Samad Alias Paltan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2022B.A./366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Ambuj Nath allowed the petitioner's withdrawal of bail application No. 366 of 2022 and dismissed it as withdrawn. The court directed action against the petitioner's illiterate father, Pairvikar Kinu Munda, for suppressing the fact of a prior bail application filed in 2020.

What did the court decide?

Petition for withdrawal allowed; application dismissed as withdrawn; directions issued for legal action against the petitioner's father.

Sanika Samad Alias Paltan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 366 of 2022

¶2

Sanika Samad @ Paltan …... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party

¶3

Versus --------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶5

-------For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P --------

¶6

07/ Dated 04.11.2022

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this bail application.

¶8

Prayer is allowed.

¶9

This application is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶10

However, office had reported that the bail application was earlier moved before the Hon'ble Court for grant of bail in B.A No.7873 of 2022 but the same was not mentioned at paragraph -2 of the petition.

¶11

Learned Registrar General of this Court was directed to enquire into the matter and submit a report, fixing responsibility as to who was responsible for suppression of this fact in the present bail application. learned Registrar General has submitted a report stating therein that the Pairvikar, Kinu Munda, who is the father of the petitioner, Sanika Samad @ Paltan has sworn affidavit in both the cases, i.e. in B.A No.7873 of 2020 and in B.A No.366 of 2022. Learned Registrar General has further reported that the petitioner is an illiterate person having no knowledge of Hindi or English, rather he could understand and speak 'Mundari' only. Statement of Pairvikar, Kinu Munda was recorded. it appears that the contents of the bail application were read over and explained to him in 'Mundari'. Accordingly, it is apparent that the Pairvikar, Kinu Munda was aware that the certificate regarding the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved this court for bail was missing at paragraph-2 of the present bail application.

¶12

Accordingly, learned Registrar General is directed to take necessary steps to report the matter before the appropriate court concerned for taking legal action against the said Pairvikar, Kinu Munda.

¶13

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶14

BS/

Sanika Samad Alias Paltan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanika Samad Alias Paltan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balram Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagai Mandal Alias Saday Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Firangi Toppno Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashad Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand