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
6 paragraphs · 231 wordsD.N. Upadhyay, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is accused in connection with Putki P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 for the offence registered under Sections 364/279/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from FIR that the vehicle belonging to the informant was driven by deceased Ranjit Kumar and the driver disappeared with the Vehicle and the informant failed to contact him and thus lodged this case. During investigation, it was transpired that the driver of the vehicle was killed and the vehicle was looted by the miscreants. One of the accused Guddu Ansari was arrested and he has confessed his guilt disclosing names of his associates, including name of this petitioner.
It is submitted that save and except confession made by co-accused Guddu Ansari, there is nothing against this petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
Contentions made by the learned counsel find support from the case diary.
Considering above aspects of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail of furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J. IInd, Dhanbad in connection with Putki P.S. case No. 6 of 2008 (G.R. No. 340 of 2008).