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.

Majri Paswan and ors Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr

Majri Paswan and ors vs The State of Jharkhand and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972443

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

Majri Paswan and ors

Advocate Sri. Arbind Kr. Sinha

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand and anr

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a.no. 2149 of 2013. ----- 1. majari devi 2. binod paswan 3. chhotan paswan 4. manoj paswan petitioners. versus 1.the state of jharkhand 2. bishwanath paswan opposite party. ..... coram : the hon'ble mr. justice prashant kumar. ----- for the petitioners : sri arbind kr. sinha for the state : sri pankaj kumar, a.p.p. ----- 02/19.06.2013. anticipatory bail application filed by majari devi, binod paswan, chhotan paswan and manoj paswan is moved by sri arbind kr. sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by sri pankaj kumar, addl.p.p. for the state. from perusal of first information report, i find that there is no allegation against these petitioners that they demanded dowry from deceased and/or from her parents. there is no allegation that they tortured deceased for the said demand. considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, i allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 29.06.2013. if petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of c.j.m., garhwa in connection with dandi p.s. case no.19 of 2012, corresponding to g.r.no.638 of 2012, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr. p.c. ( prashant kumar, j.) pramanik/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 2149 of 2013. ----- 1. Majari Devi 2. Binod Paswan 3. Chhotan Paswan 4. Manoj Paswan Petitioners. Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Bishwanath Paswan Opposite Party. ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioners : Sri Arbind Kr. Sinha For the State : Sri Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 02/19.06.2013. Anticipatory bail application filed by Majari Devi, Binod Paswan, Chhotan Paswan and Manoj Paswan is moved by Sri Arbind Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Pankaj Kumar, Addl.P.P. for the State. From perusal of First Information Report, I find that there is no allegation against these petitioners that they demanded dowry from deceased and/or from her parents. There is no allegation that they tortured deceased for the said demand. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 29.06.2013. If petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Garhwa in connection with Dandi P.S. case no.19 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.638 of 2012, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. ( Prashant Kumar, J.) Pramanik/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial