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.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar

Dharmendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 11, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975174

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
Patna 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

Dharmendra Kumar

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna criminal miscellaneous no.44376 of 2011 dharmendra kumar, s/o-masudan sharma versus the state of bihar ---------------------------------”11. 01.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned additional public prosecutor for the state assisted by learned counsel for the informant. petitioner is said to be main assailant and earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by this court vide order dated 08.09.2011 passed in cr. misc. no. 16170 of 2011 but submission on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of passing of the above stated order dated 08.09.2011, the case diary was not available before this court. it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in course of investigation, it came to light that thousands of people had surrounded the house of the petitioner and firing was made from the roof of the petitioner. so, it is very difficult to say that it was petitioner who fired on the deceased. although, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince me but i am not at all convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with ghosi p.s. case no. 240 of 2010 pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, jehanabad is, hereby, rejected. it is pointed out by learned counsel for the 2 informant that case of the petitioner has already been committed to the court of sessions. the learned trial court should expedite the trial of the petitioner. shahzad ( hemant kumar srivastava, j.)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44376 of 2011 Dharmendra Kumar, S/O-Masudan Sharma Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------”

11. 01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner is said to be main assailant and earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16170 of 2011 but submission on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of passing of the above stated order dated 08.09.2011, the case diary was not available before this Court. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in course of investigation, it came to light that thousands of people had surrounded the house of the petitioner and firing was made from the roof of the petitioner. So, it is very difficult to say that it was petitioner who fired on the deceased. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince me but I am not at all convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2010 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad is, hereby, rejected. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the 2 informant that case of the petitioner has already been committed to the court of Sessions. The learned trial court should expedite the trial of the petitioner. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial