Allowed

Sonaram Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Jharkhand HC3 May 2017B.A./3242/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused in a corruption case alleged to have demanded a bribe while serving as Panchayat Secretary, sought bail in judicial custody. sustaining an argument of false implication and lack of evidence against him, ordered his release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Sonaram Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3242 of 2017

¶2

Sonaram Murmu … … Petitioner Versus … The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance … Opp. Party

¶3

--- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶4

For the Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P.

¶5

02/03.05.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner was Panchayat Secretary, Patanpur Panchayat, Bahragora (East Singhbhum) at the time of alleged occurrence. It is alleged that the petitioner was demanding bribe from the informant for passing his final bill. It is further submitted that no bribe amount has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner by the raiding team of Anti-Corruption Bureau. There is alleged recovery of rupees twelve thousand from the possession of co-accused Dinbandhu Khatua who happened to be the Mukhiya of the said Panchayat. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only due to the reason that he was present at the place of occurrence, i.e. the Panchayat Secretariat. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.02.2017 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶8

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge(A.C.B.), Chaibasa in connection with Special Case No.05 of 2017 arising out of Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.05 of 2017.

¶10

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶11

R.P./

Sonaram Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonaram Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghura Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajendra Ray Alias Umashankar Ray Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahabir Lohar Alias Biru Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Hussain Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Atikur Rehman Alias Atikur Rehman Alias Atikur Rahaman And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajeev Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand