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.

Tarshila Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Tarshila Devi vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 31, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1026223

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

Tarshila Devi

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand, ranchi b.a. no. 6453 of 2013 tarshila devi ..... petitioner(s) versus the state of jharkhand . opp. party(s) coram : honble mr. justice r. r. prasad for the petitioner(s) : m/s j.s. singh, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ----- 02 /31.08.2013. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state. the petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the indian penal code. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when mazeeb ansari was found murdered, a case was registered against this petitioner and other accused persons as this petitioner is said to have had illicit relation with that deceased, but it does not stand to reason as to why this petitioner would be committing murder of the deceased when it is said that the petitioner was having illicit relation with him and that it has also come during investigation that the one co-accused,namely, sagar singh did confess before the police that it was this petitioner and other accused persons who committed murder of the deceased but such exculpatory statement will have no evidentiary value so far this petitioner is concerned and thereby, there appears to be absolutely no material showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned principal sessions judge, latehar in connection with manika p.s. case no.07 of 2012, corresponding to g.r. no.56 of 2012 [s.t. no.202 of 2012]. (r. r. prasad, j.) sandeep/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI B.A. No. 6453 of 2013 Tarshila Devi ..... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand . Opp. Party(s) CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD For the Petitioner(s) : M/s J.

S. Singh, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ----- 02 /31.08.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when Mazeeb Ansari was found murdered, a case was registered against this petitioner and other accused persons as this petitioner is said to have had illicit relation with that deceased, but it does not stand to reason as to why this petitioner would be committing murder of the deceased when it is said that the petitioner was having illicit relation with him and that it has also come during investigation that the one co-accused,namely, Sagar Singh did confess before the Police that it was this petitioner and other accused persons who committed murder of the deceased but such exculpatory statement will have no evidentiary value so far this petitioner is concerned and thereby, there appears to be absolutely no material showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in connection with Manika P.S. Case No.07 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.56 of 2012 [S.T. No.202 of 2012]. (R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial