Chandrika Mehta Alias Chandrika Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi b.a.no.224of2013 chandrikamehta@chandrikamahto petitioner versus thestateofjharkhand oppositeparty coram: honblemr.justiced.n.upadhyay forthepetitioner :mr.jitendrashankarsingh,advocate forthestate :a.p .p. 02/05.02.2013 heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. thepetitionerisaccusedinconnectionwithhussainabadp.s.case no.120 of 2012 corresponding to g.r. no.1721 of 2012 registered under sections147,148,149,302&120boftheindianpenalcodeandsection27of thearmsactwhichispendinginthecourtoflearnedchiefjudicialmagistrate, palamau. itisallegedthatthepetitionerandhisassociateskilledthehusband oftheinformantbycausinginjurytohimbymeansoffirearms. itissubmittedthatthedeceasedhadsustainedonlytwogunshot injurieswhichaccordingtothef.i.r.,wascausedbyotheraccusedpersons. learnedcounsel,appearing for the state opposedthe prayerfor bail. thepetitionerisnamedinthef.i.r.hewashavingfirearmswhich heusedatthetimeofcommissionoftheoffence. consideringtheaforesaidfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,ido notfeelinclinedtoconsiderprayerforbailofthepetitioner. accordingly,the prayerforbailmadeonbehalfofthepetitionerstandsrejected. (d.n.upadhyay,j.) nkc

Judgment:

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI B.A.No.224of2013 ChandrikaMehta@ChandrikaMahto Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand OppositeParty CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY ForthePetitioner :Mr.JitendraShankarSingh,Advocate FortheState :A.P .P. 02/05.02.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. ThepetitionerisaccusedinconnectionwithHussainabadP.S.Case No.120 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.1721 of 2012 registered under Sections147,148,149,302&120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandSection27of theArmsActwhichispendingintheCourtoflearnedChiefJudicialMagistrate, Palamau. Itisallegedthatthepetitionerandhisassociateskilledthehusband oftheinformantbycausinginjurytohimbymeansoffirearms. Itissubmittedthatthedeceasedhadsustainedonlytwogunshot injurieswhichaccordingtotheF.I.R.,wascausedbyotheraccusedpersons. Learnedcounsel,appearing for the State opposedthe prayerfor bail. ThepetitionerisnamedintheF.I.R.Hewashavingfirearmswhich heusedatthetimeofcommissionoftheoffence. Consideringtheaforesaidfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,Ido notfeelinclinedtoconsiderprayerforbailofthepetitioner. Accordingly,the prayerforbailmadeonbehalfofthepetitionerstandsrejected. (D.N.Upadhyay,J.) NKC