Allowed

Sunil Ram Alias Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 May 2019B.A./371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under B.A. No. 371 of 2019, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the release of petitioners on bail after noting conflicting reports on the framing of charges and key facts from affidavits. The court imposed a bond of Rs. 25,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 25,000 each and complying with specified conditions.

Sunil Ram Alias Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 371 of 2019

¶2

Sunil Ram @ Sunil Kumar

¶3

Arjun Kumar Ram @ Angrej Kumar Ram ….. Petitioners Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶5

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶6

¶7

04/Dated: 14/05/2019

¶8

Petitioners are accused in Balumath P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, registered for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

In this case, status report of the case was called for.

¶10

Perused the report dated 23.03.2019 submitted by Md. Taufique Ahmed, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar which reveals that charge has not been framed.

¶11

Further, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners dated 04.04.2019, which reveals that charge under Section 414 of the I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner.

¶12

Another supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners dated 15.04.2019, which reveals that father of the petitioner no. 2 namely, Tirbin Ram was suffering from High Blood Pressure and he has been admitted on 07.04.2019 in RIMS and on 08.04.2019, father of the petitioner no. 2 has died.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are in custody since 03.09.2018.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) One of the bailers shall be relative of the petitioners. (ii) Petitioners shall deposit Rs. 1,500/- each by way of cost in the account of Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties being A/C No. 90552010165915, IFSC Code

¶17

-2-

¶18

– SYNB0009055, Syndicate Bank, Branch – South Block, Defence Headquarter, New Delhi, Branch Code – 9055 and will submit a receipt of the aforesaid deposition before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds. (iii) Petitioners are further directed that alongwith the bail bonds, they will furnish their Cell numbers and xerox copy of Aadhar Cards in the court below.

¶19

Let a copy of order be also communicated to the trial court and also handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶20

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶21

Sunil/

Sunil Ram Alias Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Ram Alias Sunil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tikait Prasad Mehta Alias Tikait Prasad Akhauriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramautar Gosain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Maheshwar Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daya Shankar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sabbir Ahamd Alias Sabbir Ahamd Vs the State of Jharkhand