Santu Baraik @ Budeshwar Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 406 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    B.A. No.12036 of 2020

                 Santu Baraik @ Budeshwar Baraik        ...              Petitioner
                                           Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand                 ...         Opposite Party

         Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

         For the Petitioner          : Mr. Kripa Shankar Pandey, Adv.
         For the State               : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P.

02 /28.01.2021

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.149 of 2017 arising out of T. Tanger P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.366 of 2013(s) registered under sections 147/ 148/149/353/307/ of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)A,26/ 27/35 of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the member of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, fired upon the police personnel in exchange of fire between the extremists and the police. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused-Bhalerian Tirky and Bhalerian Tirkey and Ranjit Topno have been acquitted in their trial in connection with this case, vide judgment dated 14.01.2020 in S.T. No.81 of 2014 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Simdega, It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.06.2017 as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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, Simdega in connection with S.T. Case No.149 of 2017 arising out of T. Tanger P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.366 of 2013(s) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case.

Pappu/                          (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)