Raju Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2024B.A./295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC bail granted, Justice Ambuj Nath, 07.03.2024; B.A. 11810/2023 and B.A. 295/2024 disposed by common order; Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 49/2023; IPC ss. 323, 341, 504, 506, 307, 387, 34; Arms Act s. 27; rangdari-demand firing on Informant 13.06.2023; petitioners not named in FIR, named via confession of co-accused Nav Nehal Singh; bail bond Rs. 20,000 with two sureties; Judicial Magistrate XXVIII Ranchi (D.N. Shukla); advocates Rishu Ranjan, Mohit Prakash, Arup Kr. Dey A.P.P., Tarun Kumar A.P.P.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri D.N. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, XXVIII, Ranchi or his successor, in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023. ¶¶16

Raju Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A No. 11810 of 2023 With

¶3

B.A. No. 295 of 2024

¶4

Abhishek Ranjan ----Petitioner in [B.A 11810/2023] Raju Kumar Gupta @ Raju Gupta --Petitioner in [B.A 295/2024]

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party ---

¶6

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate [B.A. 11810/23] Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate [B.A. 295/24] For the O.P-State: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. [B.A. 11810/23] Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P [B.A. 295/24]

¶9

¶10

05 / 07.03.2024 Both these bail applications arise out of the same police case. As such, they are being disposed of by the common order.

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Petitioners have been made accused in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 307, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri D.N. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, XXVIII. Ranchi.

¶13

It is alleged that on 13.06.2023 at about 5.30 p.m., two masked persons came to the garage of the Informant and fired at him to enforce the demand of rangdari.

¶14

It was submitted that the petitioners are neither named in the FIR, nor they were put on T.I. Parade and no money was transferred to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the name of the petitioners has transpired in the confession of co-accused Nav Nehal Singh.

¶15

Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P in B.A. 11810 of 2023 and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P in B.A. 295 of 2024 have opposed the prayer for bail

¶16

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri D.N. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, XXVIII. Ranchi or his successor in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023.

¶17

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶18

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Raju Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad Yadav Alias Thulu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nilesh Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shantimay Mundu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Huka Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand