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.

Amar Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Amar Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 20, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972703

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

Amar Mahto

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi b. a. no. 3894 of 2013 amar mahto ... petitioner versus the state of jharkhand ... opposite party -------- coram : honble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr.parth s.a.swaroop pati, 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 angara p.s. case no. 82 of 2012 corresponding to g.r. no. 6335 of 2012, s.t no. 234 of 2013 for the offence under sections 302 / 201 of the indian penal code. the case relates to murder of the son of the informant whose dead body was recovered and petitioner and the co-accused have been made accused in this case. so far as the co-accused is concerned, it is alleged that the deceased had gone along-with him and subsequently, his dead body was found and so far as this petitioner is concerned, it is stated that there was some quarrel with the petitioner and accordingly, there is suspicion against the petitioner also. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the impugned order also. in the facts of this case, i am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, amar mahto on bail. accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned a.j.c.-xvii, ranchi in connection with angara p.s. case no. 82 of 2012 corresponding to g.r. no. 6335 of 2012, s.t no. 234 of 2013. ( h. c. mishra, j.) bs/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3894 of 2013 Amar Mahto ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Parth S.a.Swaroop Pati, 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 Angara P.S. Case No. 82 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 6335 of 2012, S.T No. 234 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to murder of the son of the informant whose dead body was recovered and petitioner and the co-accused have been made accused in this case. So far as the co-accused is concerned, it is alleged that the deceased had gone along-with him and subsequently, his dead body was found and so far as this petitioner is concerned, it is stated that there was some quarrel with the petitioner and accordingly, there is suspicion against the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the impugned order also. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Amar Mahto on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-XVII, Ranchi in connection with Angara P.S. Case No. 82 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 6335 of 2012, S.T No. 234 of 2013. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial