Allowed

Rajesh Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Dec 2022A.B.A./9245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with a case involving illegal distillery operations and offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Excise Act, directing surrender within two weeks and bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail; directed surrender within two weeks; enlargement on bail with bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties of like amount each.

Rajesh Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 9245 of 2022

¶3

Rajesh Murmu …... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------For the Petitioner : Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P --------

¶5

04/ Dated 12.12.2022

¶6

Heard the parties.

¶7

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No.41 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 272 & 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

¶8

It is alleged that on 19.05.2022 at about 9:00 AM, Kandra police on the basis of confidential information raided the forest area at Palobeda village and demolished an illegal distillery. It is further alleged that 150 kgs. of Jawa Mahua and 17 liters of liquor were recovered from there.

¶9

It appears that name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confidential information obtained on local enquiry.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecution has not disclosed the name of any witness, who has spelt out the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on suspicion. The petitioner was neither arrested at the spot nor anything was recovered from his possession.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶12

Regard being had to the facts of the case; I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, and in the event of his surrender in the court below, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No.41 of 2022, on the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶13

BS/

¶14

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Rajesh Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Murmu 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

Wakil Hussain Alias MD Bakil Hasan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manohar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Oraon Alias Ghana Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand