Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bimla Devi and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr

Bimla Devi and anr vs The State of Jharkhand and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 31, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1008852

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bimla Devi and anr

Advocate Sri. A.K.Jha

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand and anr

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a.no. 2261 of 2013. ----- 1. bimala devi 2. sarita devi petitioners. versus 1.the state of jharkhand 2. kali charan verma opposite party. ..... coram : the hon'ble mr. justice prashant kumar. ----- for the petitioner : sri a.k.jha for the state : sri prem prakash, a.p.p. ----- 03/31.07.2013. anticipatory bail application filed by bimala devi and sarita devi is moved by sri a.k.jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by sri prem prakash, addl.p.p. for the state. it appears that allegation against these petitioners are similar to co-accused saroj kumar rawani @ saroj ramani @ saroj rawani. aforeaid co-accused has been granted regular bail by a bench of this court vide order dated 09.2.2012 in b.a.no. 722/2012. considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance and also taking into account that both the petitioners are female, i allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 14/08/2013. 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 s.d.j.m. deoghar in connection with jasidih p.s. case no.187/2011, corresponding to g.r. no. 978/2011, 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. 2261 of 2013. ----- 1. Bimala Devi 2. Sarita Devi Petitioners. Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Kali Charan Verma Opposite Party. ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioner : Sri A.K.Jha For the State : Sri Prem Prakash, A.P.P. ----- 03/31.07.2013. Anticipatory bail application filed by Bimala Devi and Sarita Devi is moved by Sri A.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Prem Prakash, Addl.P.P. for the State. It appears that allegation against these petitioners are similar to co-accused Saroj Kumar Rawani @ Saroj Ramani @ Saroj Rawani. Aforeaid co-accused has been granted regular bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.2.2012 in B.A.No. 722/2012. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance and also taking into account that both the petitioners are female, I allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 14/08/2013. 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 S.D.J.M. Deoghar in connection with Jasidih P.S. case no.187/2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 978/2011, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. ( Prashant Kumar, J.) Raman/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial