The High Court of Jharkland granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a case involving cheating and forgery, directing his release upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties while mandating physical presence at trial.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties; directed to appear physically in trial court.
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.3835 of 2019
Gautam Mahato. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : APP ----- Order No.05 Date: 12.07.2019
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has committed no offence as alleged in the complaint leading to lodging of the first information report. It has been alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons motivated the investors to invest in M/s. ASPEN Group of Company. Though it has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was functioning as Manager in the said company, yet no cogent evidence has been collected by the police to that effect. Similarly situated co-accused- Mirza Abdul Nasar @ Mirza Abul Nasar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23rd March, 2017 in B.A. No.2127 of 2017. Another co-accused- Joyanta Dey @ Jayanta Dey has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th February, 2017 in B.A. No.1076 of 2017. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 5th August, 2017 and at least considering the length of judicial custody he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 5th August, 2017, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Patamda
-2-
(Kamalpur) P.S. Case No.37 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2149 of 2015, with the condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the trial court till conclusion of the trial unless his physical presence is exempted by the Trial Court for specific date failing which the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused at large in judicial custody for a period, is entitled to regular bail considering his specific circumstances.
Gautam Mahato
The State of Jharkhand
Prem Chand Mahato
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
