Antu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge order rejecting the bail prayer of a petitioner accused of dowry death and attempted murder. The court refused bail due to the serious nature of the offence and prosecution materials, allowing renewed prayer after six months.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner not admitted on bail; liberty to renew prayer after six months if trial is not concluded.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4780 of 2022
Antu Yadav …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
Order No.05/ Dated:16.08.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 174 of 2021 arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 142 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 75 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Palamau at Daltonganj.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner accused of a serious dowry-caste offence under Section 307 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be granted bail.
Whether the lack of prosecution witnesses support or the dying declaration implicating the petitioner impacts the bail prayer.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Antu Yadav
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- B.A./4780/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court