Mintu @ Mantu @ Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 415 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No.39 of 2020

          1. Mintu @ Mantu @ Yadav
             @ Manoj Kumar @ Mintu Yadav
          2. Sunil Rajak                                         ....   Appellants
                                 Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                                 ....   Respondent

      CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

          For the Appellants :       Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                     Mr. Awinash Kumar, Advocate
          For the Respondent :       Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                     .........

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

.........

I.A. No.184 of 2021

4/28.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant No.2 and learned counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the said appellant for granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 338, 504, 506, 307, 302 /149 of the Indian Penal Code.

From the impugned Judgment, it appears that there was land dispute between the parties, due to which, the occurrence had taken place. In the FIR, there is only omnibus allegation against the appellant. The appellant was on bail during trial.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to release the appellant No.2 on bail. Accordingly, appellant No.2 Sunil Rajak is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in connection with S.T. No. 04 of 2017.

The aforesaid interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed.

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) R.Kumar