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.

Joseph Ekka Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Joseph Ekka vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 20, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972700

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Joseph Ekka

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi b. a. no. 3945 of 2013 joseph ekka ... petitioner versus the state of jharkhand ... opposite party -------- coram : honble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr.a.k.yadav, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ------ 3/ 18.06.2013 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned a.p.p. for the prosecution. the petitioner has been made accused in connection with bishunpur p.s. case no. 37 of 2009 corresponding to g.r. no. 923 of 2009, s.t no.239 of 2010 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 302, 326, 427 of the indian penal code, section 27 of the arms act, section 17 of the cla act, section 13 (i) of the u.p.a act and section 3/4 of the explosive substance act. there was an encounter between the police party and the extremists group, in which, anti land mines vehicle was blown up by the extremists and there was heavy exchange of fire between the police party and the extremists, in which, three police personnel were killed and some of them were injured. the petitioner has been named in the fir, to be an active member of the gang and involved in the occurrence. the bail applications of this petitioner were earlier rejected twice on merits. learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail, submitting that the witnesses examined so far, have not identified the petitioner. in the facts of this case, i am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, joseph ekka on bail. accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. ( h. c. mishra, j.) bs/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3945 of 2013 Joseph Ekka ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Yadav, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 3/ 18.06.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 923 of 2009, S.T No.239 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 302, 326, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act, Section 13 (i) of the U.P.A Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. There was an encounter between the police party and the extremists group, in which, Anti Land Mines Vehicle was blown up by the extremists and there was heavy exchange of fire between the police party and the extremists, in which, three police personnel were killed and some of them were injured. The petitioner has been named in the FIR, to be an active member of the gang and involved in the occurrence. The bail applications of this petitioner were earlier rejected twice on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail, submitting that the witnesses examined so far, have not identified the petitioner. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Joseph Ekka on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial