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.

Raj Kumar Mitra and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Mitra and ors vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 01, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971691

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

Raj Kumar Mitra and ors

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi a.b.a.no.1818of2012 1. rajkumarmitra.2. jagdishtiwari.3. lutansingh. ... ... ... ...petitioners versus the state of jharkhand. ... ... ... ...opp. party ---------- coram: the hon'ble mr. justice d.n.upadhyay. forthepetitioners: mr.sidhartharoy,advocate. forthestate: a.p.p. 04/ 01.09.2012 it is alleged in the f.i.r. that all the petitioners on 28.07.2011 restrained the informant and his companion and caused assault to them. it is also alleged that they were demanding rs. 10 lakh as rangdari and in course of scuffle, they took away golden chain, titan wrist watch and rs.1500 in cash. it is also submitted that no case under section 387 i.p.c. is made out and section 379 i.p.c. has been super added. as matter of fact, it is the petitioner no.3, who was assaulted by the informant for which dhanbad p.s. case no.601/ 2011 has been lodged. the informant himself has taken rs. 3 lakh for providing job to the brother-in-law of the petitioner no.1. when no job was provided, money was demanded back and that is the reason behind the dispute. learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer. documents placed before me indicate that some dispute with regard to money between the parties was prevailing from before. in such a case exaggerated version of the incident for lodging a case cannot be ruled out. considering all these aspect of the matter, i feel inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. accordingly, they are directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and if they do so they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the chief judicial magistrate, dhanbad in connection with dhanbad p.s. case no. 604 of 2011, corresponding to g.r.no.2377 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the code of criminal procedure. [d.n.upadhyay,j.] p.k.s.

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI A.B.A.No.1818of2012 1. RajKumarMitra.

2. JagdishTiwari.

3. LutanSingh. ... ... ... ...Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ...Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY. ForthePetitioners: Mr.SidharthaRoy,Advocate. FortheState: A.P.P. 04/ 01.09.2012 It is alleged in the F.I.R. that all the petitioners on 28.07.2011 restrained the informant and his companion and caused assault to them. It is also alleged that they were demanding Rs. 10 lakh as Rangdari and in course of scuffle, they took away golden chain, Titan wrist watch and Rs.1500 in cash. It is also submitted that no case under Section 387 I.P.C. is made out and Section 379 I.P.C. has been super added. As matter of fact, it is the petitioner No.3, who was assaulted by the informant for which Dhanbad P.S. Case No.601/ 2011 has been lodged. The informant himself has taken Rs. 3 lakh for providing job to the brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. When no job was provided, money was demanded back and that is the reason behind the dispute. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Documents placed before me indicate that some dispute with regard to money between the parties was prevailing from before. In such a case exaggerated version of the incident for lodging a case cannot be ruled out. Considering all these aspect of the matter, I feel inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, they are directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and if they do so they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 604 of 2011, corresponding to G.R.No.2377 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial