Buddu Mardi @ Dr. Mardi vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 28 April, 2026

    0
    38
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jharkhand High Court

    Buddu Mardi @ Dr. Mardi vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 28 April, 2026

    Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

    Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                     ( 2026:JHHC:12443 )
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  B.A. No. 3434 of 2026
                           ------
    

    Buddu Mardi @ Dr. Mardi, aged about 38 years, son of
    Ramchandra Mardi, resident of L-4, Quarter No.-3, Road No.
    10, P.O.+P.S. -Bistupur, District -East Singhbhum
    (Jamshedpur).

                                          ...           Petitioner
                                 Versus
         The State of Jharkhand           ...          Opposite Party
                                  ------
    

    CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

    SPONSORED

    ——

    For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
    For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

    ——

    Order No.02 Dated- 28.04.2026

    Heard the parties.

    The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in
    connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 corresponding to
    G.R. Case No. 1390 of 2017(S) in S.T. Case No. 68 of 2019 registered
    for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324,
    307, 379, 337, 338, 114, 302, 120B, 386, 342, 341, 326 of the Indian
    Penal Code.

    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two
    brothers of the informant and one Ganesh Gupta was assaulted by
    the mob on the suspicion that they are child lifters. The allegation
    against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. The
    petitioner has been in custody since 20.01.2026 as has been
    mentioned in para -08 of this bail application. The co-accused
    persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
    01.11.2017 in B.A. Nos. 7533, 7576 & 7599 of 2017 respectively. It is
    next submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is a
    permanent employee of Uranium Corporation of India Limited,
    which is a public sector undertaking. Hence, it is submitted that
    the petitioner be admitted to bail.

    The learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
    Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
    discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the
    petitioner, named above, be released on bail. Hence, the court
    below is directed to release the petitioner, named above, on bail on
    furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
    Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
    satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in
    connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 corresponding to
    G.R. Case No. 1390 of 2017(S) in S.T. Case No. 68 of 2019.

    (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
    28.04.2026
    Sonu/



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here