Pappu Kumar @ Papu Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Outcome
Bail refused
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 384, 386
Judgment
Operative part
Mr. Diwakar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 16-05-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 59 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is involved in extortion. It is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to grant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33403 of 2021(2) dt.16-05-2022 the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Anand Kr. U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: anticipatory bail is hereby rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 384, 386.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.