Mukesh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 08, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1007550

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1007550
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Aug 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh Kumar

Advocate Sri. Ananda Sen

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....das and dilip kumar das is moved by sri ananda sen , learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by sri g.s.prasad and h.p.singh, addl.p.ps. for the state. it appears that notice issued to complainant in a.b.a.no.1964/2013 but inspite of service of notice complainant did not appear to oppose anticipatory bail applications. from perusal of s.a., it appears that petitioners took money for sale of two kathas of land, but they executed sale deed of one katha and 16 dhoor of land. from perusal of sale deed ( annexure-2), it appears that on the date of registry complainant was present before the registrar and he put his signature on the sale deed in english. thus, it appears that he must have gone through the contents of sale deed, on the date of registration, he had not made any protest regarding the same. considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, i allow these applications and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 21/08/2013. if petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of j.m.ist class, jamshedpur in connection with c/1- case no. 263/2012 , subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr. p.c. ( prashant kumar, j.) raman/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 1964 of 2013. ----- Mukesh Kumar Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Ravi Kumar Opp. Party. With A.B.A.No. 2411 of 2013.

1. Asit Kumar Das 2. Dilip Kumar Das Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand Opp.Party. Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioner : Sri Ananda Sen For the State : M/s G.S.Prasad & H.P.Singh, A.P.Ps. ----- 03/08.08.2013. Both the applications arose from same Complaint case, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. Anticipatory bail applications being A.B.A.No.1964/2013 filed by Mukesh Kumar and A.B.No.2411/2013 filed by Asit Kumar Das and Dilip Kumar Das is moved by Sri Ananda Sen , learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri G.S.Prasad and H.P.Singh, Addl.P.Ps. for the State. It appears that notice issued to complainant in A.B.A.No.1964/2013 but inspite of service of notice complainant did not appear to oppose anticipatory bail applications. From perusal of S.A., it appears that petitioners took money for sale of two kathas of land, but they executed sale deed of one katha and 16 dhoor of land. From perusal of sale deed ( Annexure-2), it appears that on the date of registry complainant was present before the Registrar and he put his signature on the sale deed in English. Thus, it appears that he must have gone through the contents of sale deed, on the date of registration, he had not made any protest regarding the same. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, I allow these applications and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 21/08/2013. If petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M.Ist class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1- case no. 263/2012 , subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. ( Prashant Kumar, J.) Raman/

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Mukesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand Same Subject Education