Dismissed

Sukra Tirkey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC30 Nov 2018B.A./5504/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a bail application in a bank dacoity case under Section 395 IPC. The court refused bail because the trial was pending and the informant had not been examined, despite arguments regarding non-naming in FIR and recovery of common articles. Petitioners were given liberty to renew the prayer post-informant examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the petitioners rejected with liberty to renew prayer after examination of the informant during trial.

Sukra Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6084 of 2018 WITH B.A. No.5504 of 2018

¶2

¶3

Gwala Singh Bankira

¶4

Juriya Deogam @ Chiriya Deogam … Petitioner [in BA 6084 of 2018]

¶5

Sukra Tirkey …

¶6

Petitioner [in BA 5504 of 2018]

¶7

-versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

… Opposite Party [in both cases] ----

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶11

----

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate

¶13

Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

¶14

For the State : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶15

----

¶16

6/ 30.11.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Chaibasa (Muffasil) Police Station Case No.129 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.599 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were not named in the FIR. Chargesheet has already been submitted and petitioners were not put on Test Identification Parade. Money which has been recovered being a common article belongs to the petitioners and cannot be related with the crime.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that on the basis of confessional statement, money was recovered.

¶20

After hearing the parties, I find that this is a case of bank dacoity wherein six unknown persons entered the bank with arms and weapons and robbed cash amounting to more than Rs.3,50,000/-. Informant, who happens to be the Bank Manager clearly stated that he can identify the accused persons.

¶21

Since the trial is yet to begin and informant is yet to be examined in this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Gwala Singh Bankira, Juriya Deogam @ Chiriya Deogam (petitioners in B.A. No.6084 of

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

and Sukra Tirkey (petitioner in B.A. No.5504 of 2018) in connection with Chaibasa Muffasil Police Station Case No.129 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.599 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa is hereby rejected.

¶24

Petitioners, if so advised, are given liberty to renew their prayer for bail after examination of the informant during trial.

¶25

This application stands dismissed.

¶26

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶27

Kumar/Cp-03

Sukra Tirkey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukra Tirkey 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

Gajendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Besra Alias Bhoso Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhan Miyan Alias Bhola Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gwala Singh Bankira Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramlal Rai Alias Abinash Alias Bikram Alias Prem Jee Alias Chhotu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand