Allowed

Nishu Alias Puja Kotwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2019B.A./4780/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi granted bail to three petitioners accused under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. They had been in judicial custody since November 20, 2018. The court noted allegations of false implication and questioned the exclusivity of recovered articles based on a single informant’s identification, ultimately directing their release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail by furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each.

Nishu Alias Puja Kotwal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 4780 of 2019

¶3

Nishu @ Puja Kotwal

¶4

Akash Kotwal @ Akash Patro @ Akash

¶5

Suraj Kumar Kotwal @ Suraj Patro @ Suraj

¶6

…Petitioners -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

For the Petitioners : - Mr. P.S.A. Pati, Advocate For the State :- Mr. G.S.Prasad, A.P.P.

¶9

05/23.07.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Petitioners are accused for the offences punishable under Sections

¶11

457/380 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. Petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are wife and husband respectively. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. During investigation, the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the alleged disclosure of co-accused Vikash Verma @ Chengri. It is also alleged that the petitioners have made confessional statements before the police leading to recovery of some stolen household articles from the house of the accused persons. Though the said recovered articles are said to be identified by the informant in T.I.P., yet the same cannot be said to be so exclusive which could only be said to be of the informant. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 20.11.2018 and at least considering the length of judicial custody, they may be given the privilege of the regular bail.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioners’ prayer for bail.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 20.11.2018, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case no. 276 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 122 of 2019.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Ritesh

Nishu Alias Puja Kotwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishu Alias Puja Kotwal 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

Jai Mohan Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushila Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afjal Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nazrul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dipak Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand