Skip to content


Nageshwar Ganjhu Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantNageshwar Ganjhu
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
.....…petitioner(s) -v e r s u s- the state of jharkhand ...opp.party coram: - hon’ble mr. justice rajesh shankar for the petitioner(s) : - mr. a.k.chaturvedi, advocate for the opp. party :- mr. s.k.deo, a.p.p. 04/18.11.2016 heard learned counsel for the parties. petitioners are accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34/201 of the indian penal code. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of some vague statement given by the wife of the deceased. so far as similarly situated co-accused saroj @ suraj singh yadav @ saroj singh @ suraj is concerned, he.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7340 of 2016 1. Sukhlal Tanti 2. Shiv Charan Tanti …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. S.K.Deo, A.P.P. 04/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of some vague statement given by the wife of the deceased. So far as similarly situated co-accused Saroj @ Suraj Singh Yadav @ Saroj Singh @ Suraj is concerned, he has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2016 passed in B.A. no. 6981 of 2016. Moreover, petitioners are in judicial custody since 12.02.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in connection with Bandgaon (Karaikela) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. case no. 322 of 2015. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh B.A. No. 8203 of 2016 03/18.11.2016 At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, put up this case in the next week. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8434 of 2016 Md. Rafique @ Md. Rafique Ansari @ Rafique Ansari …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Faiz-Ur-Rahman, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. A.K.Tiwari, A.P.P. 04/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. as a Zonal Director of M/s. Arsh Finance Co. but in fact during investigation, no document has been collected by the prosecution showing that the petitioner has ever signed in any paper being Zonal Director of the said Company. Learned counsel further submits that the company of which the petitioner has been said to be the Director, is not in the list of the companies whose investigation have been taken over by the C.B.I. The petitioner has been made co-accused in two cases and out of these two cases, he has been granted regular bail in one case by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.08.2016 passed in B.A. No. 2211 of 2016. Moreover, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.01.2016. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P though opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner yet he submitted that M/s. Arsh Finance Co. is not in the list of the companies in which the C.B.I. has taken over the investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar P.S. Case no. 1123 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. case no. 4549 of 2014 subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9207 of 2016 Rajender Oraon …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. 03/18.11.2016 Call for the status report from the concerned trial court regarding the stage of the trial and put up this case after receipt of the said report. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9209 of 2016 Sahjad Khan @ Sajjad Khan …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, A.P.P. 03/18.11.2016 Call for the Case Diary from the concerned court and list this case after receipt thereof. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9210 of 2016 Vikram Nayak @ Vikram Kr. Nayak …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) :- For the Opp. Party :- Mr. D.K.Prasad, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 It appears from the record that name of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the cause title of the bail application has wrongly been mentioned as Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel instead of Mr. Faiz-Ur-Rahman, Mr. Sahid Ansari, Md. Taki Ahmad, Mr. Nitish Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Bipin Kumar. Office is directed to delete the name of Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel showing the counsel for petitioner after making necessary correction in the cause title of the bail application. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9212 of 2016 Sanjit Kumar Patro @ Sanju …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Mukesh Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Shiv Kumar Prasad. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the miscreants were aged about 18 to 19 years whereas the petitioner is aged about 35 years. Moreover, no T.I.P. has been conducted so as to make identification of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.06.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case no. 106 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. no. 1934 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9213 of 2016 Gyani Yadav …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. P.C.Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 385, 387 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has not been named in the F.I.R. and his name has come in the confessional statement of the named co- accused Ashok Mahto. It is also submitted that only evidence has come against the petitioner that he is said to be the informer of a Group and the said Ashok Mahto recharged his mobile from the shop of the petitioner. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused namely Bhuneshwar Mahto has already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2016 in B.A. No. 8488 of 2016. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.07.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case no. 64 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1206 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9215 of 2016 Karim Ansari …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P. 04/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused persons namely Md. Akbar and Razak Ansari have already been enlarged on bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2016 and 06.10.2016 passed in B.A. No. 6055 of 2016 and B.A. No. 8476 of 2016 respectively. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.05.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge- IX, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial no. 323 of 2016 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case no. 350 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9216 of 2016 Md. Naushad Ansari …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Amresh Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. but his name has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Irphan Ansari, who was apprehended at the spot by the police party and the said co-accused Irphan Ansari has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2016 passed in B.A. No. 8186 of 2016. The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case no. 279 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. no. 734 of 2016 subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9217 of 2016 Asgar Mian …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. K.K.Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant :- Mr. M.I.Khan, Advocate 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant, who happens to be father of the victim girl. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the statement of victim girl namely Anjum Khan was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has clearly stated that she had gone out with the accused Rajiullah out of her own will and married to Rajiullah at Nizamuddin Aulia Mazar, Delhi on 17.08.2015 and on the said date, she was major aged about 19 years and she has one child also out of the said wedlock. There is no allegation at all against the petitioner and he has been languishing in jail custody since 25.06.2016. Learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the victim girl was minor when she was abducted by the accused Rajiullah and thus, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case no. 04 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. no. 28 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9276 of 2016 1. Sangram Laguri 2. Sukhram Laguri …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. S.K.Deo, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are not named in the F.I.R. and their names have come in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused persons namely Jitender Laguri and Sonaram Laguri have already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2016 in B.A. no. 8308 of 2016. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 29.03.2016 Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial no. 148 of 2016 arising out of Jeteya P.S. Case no. 03 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9277 of 2016 Jeevan Toppo …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of being accused in another case being Barkagaon P.S. Case no. 02 of 2016 under Section 27 of Arms Act. In fact, recovery of one country made pistol and live cartridge was made from the backyard of the house of the co-accused Ram Kumar Oraon. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.03.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial no. 191 of 2016 arising out of Katkamdag P.S. Case no. 13 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9278 of 2016 Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. T.N. Verma, Special P.P. (A.C.B.) 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. In fact, he has not received any bribe amount as alleged by the informant in present case. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 22.09.2016. Learned Special P.P. (A.C.B.) has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the charge-sheet has still not been submitted in this case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (A.C.B.), Hazaribagh in connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case no. 08 of 2016 subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9280 of 2016 Sanjay Gope …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the informant in connivance with the local police. It is further submitted that no victim or any Account Holder of the locality has come forward to make complaint regarding cheating against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.05.2016. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case no. 40 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. no. 707 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9281 of 2016 Fatik Mahato @ Bablu …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. P.S. Pati, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Call for the Case Diary from the concerned court and list this case after receipt thereof. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9282 of 2016 Jitendra Munda …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that during investigation on some information given by an informer, the petitioner was apprehended and, thereafter, his confessional statement was taken by the police, which has no legal value during the trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.07.2016. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case no. 33 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. no. 358 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh B.A. No. 9283 of 2016 02/18.11.2016 At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, put up this case after two weeks. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9284 of 2016 Nageshwar Ganjhu …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. 02/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353 of the I.P.C., under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, under Section 13 of U.A.P. Act and 25(1-b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. but was not apprehended by the police at the place of occurrence. He has no concern with the extremist’s activities and he is in judicial custody since 17.08.2016. Moreover, one co-accused namely Vivek Jee @ Vivek Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2016 in B.A. No. 809 of 2016. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case no. 44 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. no. 1612 of 2015. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9285 of 2016 Raju Kumar Saw @ Raju Kumar Sao …Petitioner(s) -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party :- Mr. V.S. Prasad, A.P.P. 03/18.11.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324/307/34 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated by the informant in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner has already been made accused in another case being Bermo P.S. Case no. 92 of 2016 in relation to recovery of one automatic pistol and one country made pistol on the basis of his confession. So far this case is concerned, there is no cogent evidence to connect this petitioner with the alleged offence. Moreover, petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.06.2016. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bermo P.S. Case no. 85 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. no. 596 of 2016. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //