Allowed

Nandlal Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2018B.A./3992/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner, Nandlal Ram, an accused under IPC Sections 395/397/412, after admitting the unavailability of the Case Diary. The court noted the petitioner was not in the FIR and nothing was recovered from him.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and appearing before the Police Station Officer once a month.

Nandlal Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3992 of 2018

----

Nandlal Ram

… Petitioner

-versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

… Opposite Party ----

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶9

----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

¶11

----

¶12

6/ 07.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Rail Daltonganj Police Station Case No.15 of 2009 (G.R. No.823 of 2009) corresponding to Sessions Trial No.49 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st , Latehar.

¶14

Case Diary was called for in this case on 01.08.2018, but the same has not been received. This Court cannot wait for indefinite period at the mercy of the prosecution.

¶15

Since Case Diary has not yet been received even after lapse of four months, this case is being heard on the materials, which are available on record.

¶16

Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Name of the petitioner transpired from the confessional statement of co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it has been mentioned in the impugned order that Manoj Kumar, Madan Sao and Firoj Khan have identified the petitioner, but in what capacity and how they have identified has not been mentioned.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but, he is handicapped as the Case Diary has not been sent by the concerned official.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts and also taking into consideration that the petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2017, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner, namely, Nandlal Ram, 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st , Latehar in connection with Rail Daltonganj Police Station Case No.15 of

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

2009 (G.R. No.823 of 2009) corresponding to Sessions Trial No.49 of 2017, with a condition that the petitioner will appear before the Officer-inCharge, Rail Daltonganj Police Station once a month and in the event the petitioner fails to appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Rail Daltonganj Police Station in any particular month, bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the Officer-in-Charge, Rail Daltonganj Police Station will take all steps for re-arrest of the petitioner.

¶21

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶22

Kumar/Cp-03

Nandlal Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal Ram 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

Bimal Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Birang Oram Vs Sri a K Agarwal General Manager South Eastern Railway and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baday Sawansi Alias Barai Sawansi Alias Baday Swansi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purusottam Ganjhu Alias Basant Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand