RITIK PANDEY ALIAS RITIK KUMAR PANDEY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./11046/2024 · 2025-03-21
Rajesh Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30133 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30133 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11046 of 2024 ---- Ritik Pandey @ Ritik Kumar Pandey, 20 years, Son of Sanjay Pandey @ laddu Pandey, resident of- Bidyapati Nagar, Baridih, P.O.-Baridih and P.S. Sidhgora, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
…. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Opposite Party ----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ----
For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Adv.
For the State
: Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. ----
06/Dated: 21st March, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The applicant, who is in custody since 09.01.2023, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T Case No.205 of 2023, arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No.01 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 506, 302, 342 & Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
3. The prayer for bail of the applicant was earlier twice rejected by this Court vide
order dated 13.06.2023 passed in B.A No.3724 of 2023 & vide order dated 14.05.2204 passed in B.A No.43 of 2024.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this applicant. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been renewed.
5.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined as per instruction.
6. Considering the above fact and the materials available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/- Uploaded