High CourtsSingle Bench

Luis Kongari vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 April 2013 · Citation: (2013) 2 AJR 628

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaya Roy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27 · Criminal Law (amendment) Act, 2013 — Section 17 · Finance Act, 1939 — Section 6 · Income Tax Act, 1922 — Section 10, 16, 24(1), 4(1) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 353
CASE NUMBER
B.A. No. 99 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 249 words

Jaya Roy. J.

1.

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner is an accused in this case registered under Sections 147/148/149/307/353/414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

2.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the another co-accused namely Sudhir Kongari, who is standing on similar footing with the present petitioner, has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 9044 of 2012 vide order dated 04.02.2012. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.02.2012 i.e. more than a year.

3.

Counsel appearing for the State has submitted there was encounter between the police party and members of extremists. The extremists managed to flee away and the petitioner is one of the members of the said extremists group. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri B. N. Pandey, Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in connection with S.T. No. 623 of 2012 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 174 of 2011 corresponding to GR. No. 480 of 2011 subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of district concerned.