Ganesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 674 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      B.A. No.854 of 2021

                 1.

Ganesh Yadav

2. Kishan Kumar Yadav @ Kisan Kumar Yadav

3. Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Vikash Yadav

4. Ram Kumar Yadav ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.

02 /11.02.2021 Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 161 of 2020 registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that 2 persons riding a motorcycle committed robbery. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet has been submitted against four petitioners on 14.12.2020, till that date no T.I.P. was held but on 16.01.2021, the informant has identified four petitioners as the persons who committed robbery; though the original allegation of committing robbery is only against two persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 S.C.C. (Cri) 144 of para 4 of which reads as under:-

4. "We have heard Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant. He has challenged the veracity of the test identification parade on the ground that it was held two months and twenty days after the appellant's arrest.

As mentioned above the appellant was arrested on April 4, 1969 and the test identification parade was held on June 24, 1969. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the prosecution could not hold the test identification parade immediately after the arrest of the appellant. In the absence of any other evidence the gross delay in holding the test identification parade makes the prosecution case doubtfulXxxxxxxxxxxx."

submits that belated test identification parade makes the case of prosecution doubtful. It is further submitted that there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioners. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 20.10.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 161 of 2020 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case.

Pappu/                               (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)