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 16, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ramesh Ram @ Ramesh Das & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2011

Author: D.N. Upadhyay

Bench: D.N. Upadhyay

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              A.B.A. No. 2071 of 2011
                                    ------
            1. Ramesh Ram @ Das
            2. Naresh Ram @ Das                  ...            ...      ...   Petitioners
                                    Versus

            The State of Jharkhand                      ...     ...      ...   Opp. Party
                                         ------

            CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
                                     ------
            For the Petitioners      :      Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
            For the State            :      A.P.P.
                                     -----

06/12.10.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are accused in connection with Rahela P.S. Case No. 11 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 499 of 2011 registered under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/326/307/380/387/504/506//34/354 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

It reveals from the first information report that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons made an attack on the house of informant and other villagers causing them injuries. They have also snatched away ornaments from possession of inmates.

It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case due to old enmity which is apparent from copies of earlier first information report. The injuries caused have been found simple caused by hard and blunt substance. No case u/s 107 is made out.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the witnesses examined in the case diary have supported the prosecution case. It appears that specific allegation is leveled against these two petitioners Considering the aforesaid facts and, I am not inclined to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail u/s 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(D.N. Upadhyay, J) M.M.