Arun Sahu Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Arun Sahu vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 10, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971836

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/971836
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Jan 10, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arun Sahu

Advocate Sri. Anil Kumar

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....anticipatory bail applications filed by tileshwar sahu, arun sahu, yugal kishore sahu, deepak ohdar @ deepak kr. nag and sulendra sahu, in connection with kamdara p.s. case no. 53 of 2008 corresponding to g.r. no. 1035 of 2008 pending in the court of s.d.j.m. gumla, is moved by sri anil kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by sri abhishek kumar and sri v.k. tiwary, learned additional pp. for the state. it is alleged in the f.i.r. that petitioners inflicted fire arm injury on the deceased jidan surin. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact informant nalen surin had not filed any written statement before the police, rather, said statement was given by some villagers and leaders. accordingly, after investigation police submitted final form in favour of petitioners. however, learned court below took cognizance. it is then submitted that informant filed a petition in the court below wherein she again stated that f.i.r. was not lodged on her statement. having heard the submissions, i have gone through the record of case. as noticed above, in the f.i.r. there is direct allegation against petitioners. in the bail petition, petitioners nowhere stated that they have been implicated on whose instance. it also appears that petitioners filed an application for quashing of cognizance, which was dismissed by this court. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, i am not inclined to enlarge petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. accordingly, their anticipatory bail applications rejected. petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below immediately. (prashant kumar, j.) binit

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3082 of 2012 With A. B. A. No. 3266 o”

1. Tileshwar Sahu ... Petitioner (In A.B.A. No. 3082/2012) 2. Arun Sahu 3. Yugal Kishore Sahu 4. Deepak Ohdar @ Deepak Kr. Nag 5. Sulendra Sahu Petitioners (In A.B.A. No. 3266/2012) Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party (In both cases) CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : M/s Anil Kumar, Shashi Kumar (In both cases) For the Opp. Party : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No. 3082/2012) Mr. V.K. Tiwary, A.P.P.(In A.B.A. No. 3266/2012) ........ 4/10.01.2013 Both the applications arose from the same F.I.R., thus, are heard together and disposed of by this order. Anticipatory bail applications filed by Tileshwar Sahu, Arun Sahu, Yugal Kishore Sahu, Deepak Ohdar @ Deepak Kr. Nag and Sulendra Sahu, in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No. 53 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1035 of 2008 pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Gumla, is moved by Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Abhishek Kumar and Sri V.K. Tiwary, learned Additional PP. for the State. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioners inflicted fire arm injury on the deceased Jidan Surin. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact informant Nalen Surin had not filed any written statement before the police, rather, said statement was given by some villagers and leaders. Accordingly, after investigation police submitted final form in favour of petitioners. However, learned court below took cognizance. It is then submitted that informant filed a petition in the court below wherein she again stated that F.I.R. was not lodged on her statement. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. As noticed above, in the F.I.R. there is direct allegation against petitioners. In the bail petition, petitioners nowhere stated that they have been implicated on whose instance. It also appears that petitioners filed an application for quashing of cognizance, which was dismissed by this Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their anticipatory bail applications rejected. Petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below immediately. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Arun Sahu vs The State of Jharkhand Same Subject Education