IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3962 of 2010
------
1. Sarju Ganjhu
2. Hari Ganjhu
3. Gendo Ganjhu
4. Tetar Ganjhu @ Tetal Ganjhu @ Tetaya Ganjhu
5. Gola Ganjhu
6. Bhola Ganjhu
7. Nand Keshwar Ganjhu @ Nankishor Ganjhu
8. Laldhan Ganjhu
9. Doman Ganjhu
10. Biju Ganjhu
11. Bhikhari Ganjhu
12. Brajesh Ganjhu ... ... ... .... ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.. .... ... .... ... Opp.Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sharwan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: None
For the Informant Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma
-----
2/22.12.2010
It is submitted by Sri Sharwan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner no. 9 namely Doman Ganjhu has already been
arrested, therefore application on behalf of petitioner no. 9 has become
Infructuous.
Accordingly, application on behalf of petitioner no. 9 namely
Doman Ganjhu is dismissed as infructuous.
Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners, Sarju Ganjhu, Hari
Ganjhu, Gendo Ganjhu, Tetar Ganjhu @ Tetal Ganjhu @ Tetaya Ganjhu, Gola
Ganjhu, Bhola Ganjhu, Nand Keshwar Ganjhu @ Nankishor Ganjhu, Laldhan
Ganjhu, Biju Ganjhu, Bhikhari Ganjhu and Brajesh Ganjhu in connection with
Lalwalong P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 697 of 2010
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra is moved by Sri
Sharwan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Vijay
Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the informant and nobody appears on behalf
of the State.
In view of the allegations made in the first information report, I find
that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioners, above named, rejected.
(Prashant kumar, J)
Binit