The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an application for bail. The petitioner, in judicial custody since March 2017, sought bail arguing implicating was based on meager recovery amount while a co-accused was granted bail by a coordinate bench.
Application for bail dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.
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. 4958 of 2017
Md Amiruddin @ Airuddin, son of Sarful, residetn of Niche Tola, Majhiyawan, PO & PS Majhiyawan, Dist.-West Singhbhum
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jawed Sultan, Advocate For the State : A.P.P -------
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
05/08.09.2017
The petitioner has been made an accused in Chhotanagra P.S. Case No. 03 of 2017 which was registered for offences under Sections 395/412 I.P.C.
Referring to order granting bail to co-accused- Yarul @ Yarul Ahmad by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 4781 of 2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on alleged recovery of a meager amount of Rs. 750/-, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. It is stated that the petitioner who is in judicial custody since 23.03.2017, after filing of charge-sheet deserves bail.
The learned A.P.P opposing the prayer for grant of bail submits that the petitioner was caught red-handed on the spot and he has also been identified in Test Identification Parade. There is recovery from the petitioner. Referring to order passed in B.A. No. 4781 of 2017, the learned A.P.P submits that co-accused Yarul @ Yarul Ahmad was not identified during the Test Identification Parade and while so, the plea of parity must fail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 395/412 I.P.C.
Md Amiruddin @ Airuddin
The State of Jharkhand
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
