SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SUBHASH CHAND
Bhairav Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

JUDGMENT

This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Bhairav Singh against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XXII, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.1193 of 2021 arising out of S.T.No.260 of 2021 Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.05 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.No.1219 of 2021 whereby the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the name of the petitioner figured in the F.I.R. yet the general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the named accused and the unknown persons. No person of public has identified the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence is not established except the police personnel who have stated in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. So far as the injuries which the police personnel and other authorities had sustained, the same was simple in nature and no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out.

3. The learned G.A.III vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the name of the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top