FULCHU @ JEET GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order refusing to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short facts are as follows:

(3.) THOUGH the counsel for the petitioner on the strength of various decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly 2001CriLJ1832 Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra contended that indefeasible right accrued to the accused cannot be defeated. Ultimately, counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming that he is not entitled to bail under Section 167(2), CrPC, in view of the fact that petitioner was standing outside the house in which the occurrence took place, he may be considered for bail under the provisions of Section 439, CrPC.