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.

Manjit Kumar and anr Vs. State of Jharkhand

Manjit Kumar and anr vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 05, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1025396

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manjit Kumar and anr

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 1723 o”1. manjit kumar 2. rohit mehta ... ... petitioners -v e r s u s - the state of jharkhand ... ... opposite party with a.b.a. no. 1836 of 2013 raju mehta ........ petitioner -v e r s u s the state of jharkhand ........ opposie party coram: - honble mr. justice prashant kumar for the petitioner : mr. sameer saurabh, advocate. (in both cases) for the state: : mrs. anita sinha, app 4/05.09.2013 both the applications arose out of from the same first information report thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. heard sri sameer saurabh learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and mrs. anita sinha, additional p.p. on behalf of the state. from perusal of first information report it is clear that the explosion took place in the mining area of co-accused ghanshyam singh pertaining to khata no.3, plot no.2. it is then alleged that the petitioners are partner of aforesaid co-accused ghanshyam singh. but from perusal of annexure-2, i find that the petitioners are partner with respect to land pertaining to khata no.1, plot no.53. thus, petitioners have no concern with the alleged place of occurrence. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, i allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 17.09.2013 and in the event of their surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge them 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 learned civil judge (jr. div.) iv, koderma in connection with markacho p.s. case no. 18 of 2013, corresponding to g.r. no. 169 of 2013, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr.p.c. (prashant kumar, j.) saket/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1723 o”

1. Manjit Kumar 2. Rohit Mehta ... ... Petitioners -V e r s u s - The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party with A.B.A. No. 1836 of 2013 Raju Mehta ........ Petitioner -V e r s u s The State of Jharkhand ........ Opposie Party CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate. (in both cases) For the State: : Mrs. Anita Sinha, APP 4/05.09.2013 Both the applications arose out of from the same First Information Report thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. Heard Sri Sameer Saurabh learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Mrs. Anita Sinha, Additional P.P. on behalf of the State. From perusal of First Information Report it is clear that the explosion took place in the mining area of co-accused Ghanshyam Singh pertaining to Khata No.3, Plot No.2. It is then alleged that the petitioners are partner of aforesaid co-accused Ghanshyam Singh. But from perusal of Annexure-2, I find that the petitioners are partner with respect to land pertaining to Khata No.1, Plot No.53. Thus, petitioners have no concern with the alleged place of occurrence. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this anticipatory bail application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below on or before 17.09.2013 and in the event of their surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge them 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 learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) IV, Koderma in connection with Markacho P.S. Case No. 18 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 169 of 2013, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Saket/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial