Skip to content


Anil Sah Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Jharkhand High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Anil Sah

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt:


.....anticipatory bail application filed by anil sah in connection with maheshpur p.s. case no. 151 of 2012 corresponding to g.r. no. 726 of 2012 pending in the court of learned a.c.j.m. pakur is moved by sri mahesh tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and nobody appeared on behalf of state. this is a case under sections 147/148/149/341/323/323/324/307/302 of the indian penal code. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that final form submitted in favour of the petitioner. but from perusal of charge-sheet i find that no reason assigned by the i.o. as to why no offence made out against the petitioner. moreover , i find that petitioner is named in the first information report and there is allegation against him that he participated in the crime. under the said circumstance, i find that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner named above rejected. (prashant kumar, j.) binit

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 722 of 2013 Anil Sah ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner : M/s Mahesh Tewari, Sanat Kumar Jha For the Opp. Party : None ........ 10/16.09.2013 Anticipatory bail application filed by Anil Sah in connection with Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2012 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. Pakur is moved by Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and nobody appeared on behalf of State. This is a case under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/323/324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that final form submitted in favour of the petitioner. But from perusal of charge-sheet I find that no reason assigned by the I.O. as to why no offence made out against the petitioner. Moreover , I find that petitioner is named in the first information report and there is allegation against him that he participated in the crime. Under the said circumstance, I find that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner named above rejected. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //