SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2008-11-116
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 18,2008

SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) IN this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11 .2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in G.R. Case No. 356/2002, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 395 IPC so far as against the petitioner is concerned. The facts, in short, giving rise to this application are that one Uma Shankar Prasad lodged a first information report on 8.6.2002 before Koderma Police against the petitioner and some unknown persons, which was registered as Koderma P.S. Case No. 214/2002 alleging therein that on 2.6.2002 at about 10.45 A.M. he came back to his house on his Maruti Car after completing his work in the State Bank of India and, thereafter, in order to purchase household articles he parked his car. At that time six accused persons suddenly appeared and on the point of pistol they took him inside his house and over powered the entire family members as well as tenants and thereafter, committed dacoity in his house. The informant further alleged that his tenant R.K. Banerjee, who was an employee of L and T, Barhi, had hired a Commander Jeep belonging to the present petitioner Sunil Kumar who used to visit his house and he had come at the time of occurrence to handover the briefcase to Mr. Banerjee but he was also overpowered by the miscreants. It was further alleged that the miscreants fled away from the place of occurrence alongwith the petitioner on his vehicle. The petitioner, i.e. Sunil Kumar said to have again come back and offered different unsatisfactory explanation and, therefore, the informant suspected that the petitioner was also in connivance with the accused persons in commission of the dacoity.
(3.) THE police in course of investigation did not find any evidence of the connivance of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence and, ultimately, submitted final report so far as against the petitioner is concerned but submitted the charge -sheet against six accused persons.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.