High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 JH CK 0189

Ram Prasad Mumu vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 20 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 2539 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 298 words

D.N. Upadhyay

1.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 379 I.P.C. in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 24 of 2012 (G.R. Case No. 214 of 2012), pending in the Court of T. Ahmad, JM, Jamshedpur. There is allegation against accused persons that after forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon like pistol, they surrounded the informant and his companion and caused assault to them. It is further alleged that this petitioner took out chain and cash of Rs. 800/- from the person of informant.

2.

It is submitted that earlier to this, another case was lodged on 18.1.2012 by Sunil Kumar Singh in which this petitioner is cited as a witness and that is the reason he has been implicated in this case with false allegation by a person who is accused in a number of case. It is further pointed out that one of the co-accused having more or less similar allegation has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide A.B.A. No. 1753 of 2012 on 29.5.2012.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he snatched away a chain and cash of Rs. 800/- from the informant.

4.

I have gone through the F.I.R. and the documents placed before me. I do not find that the case lodged by Suil Kumar Singh on 18.1.2012 has any connection with the present case which was lodged on 25.1.2012 and it is not a counter case. The manner of occurrence and the allegation levelled do not suggest to consider the prayer u/s 438 Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.