Lovepreet Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 407 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       B. A. No. 11926 of 2020

                  Lovepreet Singh                              ...         Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand                       ...      Opposite Party


         Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

             For the Petitioner                  : Mr. A.K. Choudhary , Adv.
             For the State                       : Mr. S.K. Sinha , Addl. P.P.




02 / 28.01.2021

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by 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 MGM P.S. case no. 98 of 2019 registered under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery of Rs. 10,000/- and mobile hand-set of the informant. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has been put on TIP but the same took place after much delay i.e. on 06.02.2020 though the date of the occurrence is of 04.11.2019 and the petitioner was apprehended by police on 10.11.2019 and because of delay in holding the TIP, it has lost its sanctity and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of Subash and Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. reported in (1987) 3 SCC 331 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its own judgment in the case of Muthuswami vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1954 SC 4, has reiterated that wherein an identification parade was held about 2 ½ months after the occurrence, it would not be safe to place reliance on the identification of the accused by the eye witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.11.2019 as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the bail application and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and also ready and willing to pay Rs. 10,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant without prejudice to his defence, hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on depositing Rs. 10,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of informant as ad interim victim compensation and 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 J.M., 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with MGM P.S. case no. 98 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case.

In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and release the demand draft in his favour on proper identification forthwith.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-