Allowed

Md Irfan Siddiqui Alias Md Irfan Alias Md Irfan Siddique v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2016B.A./52/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi disposed of two bail applications arising from the same case. The court enlarged the petitioners on bail in connection with offences of dacoity and cheating and forgery, directing them to furnish the required sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioners, Rajiv Kumar Sharma and Md. Irfan Siddiqui, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each.

Md Irfan Siddiqui Alias Md Irfan Alias Md Irfan… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 874 of 2016 Rajiv Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Jharkhand with B. A. No. 52 of 2016 Md. Irfan Siddiqui @ Md. Irfan @ Md. Irfan Siddique Versus The State of Jharkhand -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------

¶2

03/ 01.04.2016 Both these bail applications arise out of the same case and as such,

¶3

they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

¶5

The petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.C. No. 5 of 2016, arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 799 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1842 of 2015.

¶6

The case relates to dacoity. The petitioners are not named in the

¶7

FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and has accordingly, prayed for bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there is recovery of some currency notes from both these petitioners, which are alleged to be the looted money. It is, however, admitted that these currency notes were not put on Test Identification Parade.

¶10

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners, Rajiv Kumar Sharma and Md. Irfan Siddiqui @ Md. Irfan @ Md. Irfan Siddique, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 799 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1842 of 2015 / S.C. No. 5 of 2016.

¶11

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶12

Amitesh/-

Md Irfan Siddiqui Alias Md Irfan Alias Md Irfan Siddique v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Irfan Siddiqui Alias Md Irfan Alias Md Irfan Siddique v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telesphor Soreng Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Narayan Ji Alias Badri Narayan Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Umesh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anita Kumari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitu Roy Alias Jitendra Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Firoj Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand