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.

Bijay Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Bijay Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 17, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972012

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bijay Prasad

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 2006 of 2012 bijay prasad ... ... petitioner -v e r s u s - the state of jharkhand ... ... opposite party coram: - honble mr. justice d. n. upadhyay for the petitioner : mr. nilesh kumar, advocate. for the state: : app. 17.09.2012 heard learned counsel for the parties. the petitioner is accused in connection with kotwali p.s. case no. 352/2012 [g.r. no. 1797/2012], registered under sections 467, 468, 470, 471, 419, 420, 120b of the indian penal code. it reveals from the f.i.r. that after receiving secret information, the police raided photocopy shop situated near civil court campus, ranchi and fake seals, identity card, election identitiy card, income tax cards, driving licence, birth certificate, r.c. book, computer set, fitness certificate, caste certificate, some other fitness certificates etc. were recovered from there. petitioner is the owner of alleged shop. it is submitted that the petitioner was not present in his shop on the date of search and seizure and he has furnished railway tickets also. other co- accused having similar allegations, have been enlarged on regular bail by a bench of this court. learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of he petitioner. considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, i do not feel inclined to consider the anticipatory bail under section 438 cr.p.c. accordingly, the same is dismissed. however, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today for seeking regular bail which shall be considered on its own merits in view of the earlier orders in which co-accused have been granted regular bail and the materials available on record, without being prejudiced by this order. (d. n. upadhyay, j.) rc

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2006 of 2012 Bijay Prasad ... ... Petitioner -V e r s u s - The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State: : APP. 17.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is accused in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 352/2012 [G.R. No. 1797/2012], registered under Sections 467, 468, 470, 471, 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It reveals from the F.I.R. that after receiving secret information, the Police raided photocopy shop situated near Civil Court campus, Ranchi and fake seals, Identity Card, Election Identitiy Card, Income Tax Cards, Driving Licence, Birth Certificate, R.C. Book, computer set, fitness certificate, caste certificate, some other fitness certificates etc. were recovered from there. Petitioner is the owner of alleged shop. It is submitted that the petitioner was not present in his shop on the date of search and seizure and he has furnished railway tickets also. Other co- accused having similar allegations, have been enlarged on regular bail by a Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of he petitioner. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to consider the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today for seeking regular bail which shall be considered on its own merits in view of the earlier orders in which co-accused have been granted regular bail and the materials available on record, without being prejudiced by this order. (D. N. Upadhyay, J.) RC

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial