Single judge order granting bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 386 IPC and Section 17 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Bail granted after hearing counsel and considering statements of R.K. Constructions employees recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4650 of 2016
Rinku Kumar ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ………. Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------- For the Petitioner : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. -----------
04/Dated:17.08.2016
The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has no criminal history. That none of the witnesses had stated that they had demanded or had paid any levy to this petitioner. That the witnesses namely, Ram Pravesh Singh and Umesh Kumar Singh who were the employees of R.K. Constructions have nowhere stated that petitioner had taken any levy amount.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail
Heard. Considering the statement of the employees of R.K. Constructions under section 164 Cr.P.C., the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No.28 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.507 of 2016.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Tarun/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail despite allegations of false implication in the offence?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rinku Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
