Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Munna Kumar Mahto And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2014

Author: Prashant Kumar

Bench: Prashant Kumar

          IN THE    HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND                 AT    RANCHI

                        B.A. No. 4540 of 2014
               1. Anand Rajwar
               2. Kundan Rajwar
               3. Naresh Rajwar                ... ...    Petitioners
                                    Versus
               The State of Jharkhand     ..     Opposite Party

                                    with

                           B.A. No. 4546 of 2014

               1. Munna Kumar Mahto
               2. Budhan Ganjhu                ... ...    Petitioners
                                    Versus
               The State of Jharkhand              ..    Opposite Party
                                      ------
               CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
                                       ------
               For the Petitioner:   Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Adv.
               For the Opp. Party:   Mr. Sudhendra Prasad, A.P.P.
                                           ------

3/12.08.2014

Both the bail applications are heard together as they arose from same F.I.R.

Bail applications filed by petitioners namely, Anand Rajwar, Kundan Rajwar and Naresh Rajwar (in B.A. No.4540 of 2014) and Munna Kumar Mahto and Budhan Ganjhu(in B.A. No.4546 of 2014) is moved by Sri Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Sri Sudhendra Prasad, learned Additional P.P. for the State.

From perusal of criminal antecedent report at Flag-R of the case diary, I find that none of the petitioners has criminal history. Thus, the offence under Section 413 of I.P.C. is not made out. So far other offences i.e., under Sections 414/34 of I.P.C. and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act are concerned, the same are triable by a Court of Magistrate. Petitioners are in custody from 15.5.2014.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow these applications and direct the court below to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand)each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No.28 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.545 of 2014.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) Sudhir