Dinesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1224 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    B.A. No.2616 of 2021
                                           ------

                 Dinesh Yadav                         ...            Petitioner
                                             Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand                ...          Opposite Party

         Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                           ------
         For the Petitioner         : Mr. S. K. Murty, Adv.
         For the State              : Mr. Ashok Kr., Addl. P.P.
                                          ------
02 /10.03.2021       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 Birni P.S. Case No.194 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.3144 of 2015 (S.T. No.110 of 2017) registered under sections 450, 364 A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of the common intention with co-accused persons, was involved in abduction for demanding ransom. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he has been put on any T.I.P., yet he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons who have since been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih vide judgment dated 29.04.2017 passed in S.T. No.93 of 2016. 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 05.10.2018 which is evident from para-1 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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-VIII, Giridih in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 194 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.3144 of 2015 (S.T. No.110 of 2017) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.

Animesh/                      (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)