Shamim Khan @ Sonu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2408 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              B.A. No. 6546 of 2022

     Shamim Khan @ Sonu                             ...... Petitioner

                                     Versus

     The State of Jharkhand                         ...... Opposite party

                                     ----- -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

                                       -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

.....

Order No.02/ Dated:04.07.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 924 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 5653 of 2010, registered for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

As per F.I.R. on 14.12.2010, vehicle of the informant was taken by the driver Mithun Sahu, who informed through telephonic message that he is going to Tamar with vehicle for transportation of some articles. Thereafter his phone was found switch off. Informant failed to trace out the vehicle and no clue of driver was found. Hence, F.I.R. was lodged against the driver.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather his name has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and also on the basis of C.D.R and mobile phones. After, investigation charge sheet has been submitted against petitioner. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and no concrete material has been collected during the investigation against petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 26.03.2022 without rhymes and reasons. It is also submitted that there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner showing submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence which is serious and heinous in nature, hence he does not deserve bail.

It appears that during the course of the investigation one Firoz Khan and Siddique Ansari were found involved in this case. Thereafter, Ayub Ansari @ Jehad Alam @ Singha @ Zahid Alam, were arrested and charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. All the above three accused persons faced trial and acquitted vide judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed in S.T. Case No. 658 of 2012 and S.T. Case No. 14 of 2013.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with materials available against petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 924 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 5653 of 2010.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

R.K.