Md. Tippu v. State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 395
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 164, 438(2)
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the petitioner (s): Mr. For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
19.12.2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Chhattarpur PS case No. 88 of 2011 for the offence registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. This is a case of road robbery and the accused persons have looted passers-by. During investigation, one of the looted mobile was recovered from possession of Sunil Kumar who disclosed that the said mobile phone was given to him by his Master . It is submitted that the statement of petitioner was recorded in the case diary and he was examined under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P. C. He has made it clear that he runs a mobile shop and the disputed mobile was given to him for repairing but the customer did not turn up. When the police arrived at his shop, it was produced by his servant Sunil Kumar. How the petitioner has been made accused in this case is completely unknown. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, but failed to bring on record as to why the petitioner whose statement was recorded during investigation has now been made accused in the case. Contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the case diary. Further more, Sunil has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltongaj, in connection with Chhattarpur PS case No. 88 of 2011 (GR No. 1134 of 2011), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
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.