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.

Sunil Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 01, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971627

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

Sunil Kumar

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi b.a no.5573 of 2012 ------ sunil kumar . petitioner -versus- the state of jharkhand ..... opposite party ------ coram : the honble mr. justice h.c.mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr.ashok kumar pandey, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ------ 2/ 01.09.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the state. the petitioner has been made accused in deoghar (town) p.s. case no. 260 of 2011 corresponding to g.r no. 717 of 2011, for the offence under sections 461, 379 read with section 120-b of the indian penal code. the case relates to land scam in deoghar, in which, necessary documents regarding to scam were kept in the record room by the deputy commissioner, which were stolen away. in view of the fact that it transpired that rupees twenty lakhs was agreed to be given to the petitioner by the co-accused, who was the main beneficiary, for committing the theft of the records and making them to disappear and the petitioner was seen entering the record room and the burnt papers were recovered from the house of this petitioner, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 13.2.2012 in b.a no. 8373 of 2011. learned counsel for the petitioner has, renewed the prayer for bail. in the facts of this case, i am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, sunil kumar is, hereby, rejected. (h.c.mishra, j.) b.s/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5573 of 2012 ------ Sunil Kumar . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 260 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 717 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 461, 379 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to land scam in Deoghar, in which, necessary documents regarding to scam were kept in the record room by the Deputy Commissioner, which were stolen away. In view of the fact that it transpired that rupees twenty lakhs was agreed to be given to the petitioner by the Co-accused, who was the main beneficiary, for committing the theft of the records and making them to disappear and the petitioner was seen entering the record room and the burnt papers were recovered from the house of this petitioner, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 13.2.2012 in B.A No. 8373 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, renewed the prayer for bail. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Sunil Kumar is, hereby, rejected. (H.C.Mishra, J.) B.S/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial