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.

Chunchun Paswan. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.

Chunchun Paswan. vs The State of Jharkhand.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Ranchi Decided Apr 27, 2011
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917113

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 Ranchi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
B.A. No.2305 of 2011.
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

[MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO, J.] This CRL.A filed u/s.374(2) CR.P.C. by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dt. 14.7.05 passed by the dist. & SJ., fast track court II, shimoga, in s.c.no,71/02 -convicting the appellant/accused for the offence p/u/s.326 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 5 years ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 413, 414, 440, 120B, 109, 166; Jharkhand Mining Act - Section 54(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chunchun Paswan.

Advocate Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 413, 414, 440, 120B, 109, 166; Jharkhand Mining Act - Section 54(1)

Excerpt

[mr.justice b.v.pinto, j.] this crl.a filed u/s.374(2) cr.p.c. by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dt. 14.7.05 passed by the dist. & sj., fast track court ii, shimoga, in s.c.no,71/02 -convicting the appellant/accused for the offence p/u/s.326 of ipc and sentencing him to undergo s.i. for 5 years and to pay a fine of rs.3000/- i.d., s.i. for 6 months for the offence p/u/s.326 of ipc.1. the petitioner is an accused in the case registered under sections 413, 414, 440, 120b, 109 and 166 of the indian penal code and section 54(1) of the jharkhand mining act.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. earlier the land belonged to the petitioner but subsequently it was acquired by the e.c.l.; sale and purchase of the coal was from the premises of the e.c.l. not from the petitioner's land; there is no cogent material on record to show his complicity; petitioner is in custody since february 2011; he is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding.4. learned a.p.p. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail, but has not disputed the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, godda in connection with boarijore (lalmatia) p.s. case no. 24 of 2007, corresponding to g.r. no.206 of 2007.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner is an accused in the case registered under Sections 413, 414, 440, 120B, 109 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 54(1) of the Jharkhand Mining Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

3. Earlier the land belonged to the petitioner but subsequently it was acquired by the E.C.L.; sale and purchase of the coal was from the premises of the E.C.L. not from the petitioner's land; there is no cogent material on record to show his complicity; petitioner is in custody since February 2011; he is a local permanent resident; there is no chance of his absconding.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail, but has not disputed the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in connection with Boarijore (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.206 of 2007.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial