Allowed

Amit Kumar Singh Alias Golu Alias Amit Kumar Singhari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2019B.A./4812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by two accused persons charged under Section 395 IPC was heard on July 5, 2019. The High Court directed their release on regular bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of equivalent amounts.

What did the court decide?

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

Amit Kumar Singh Alias Golu Alias Amit Kumar Singhari Vs… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 4812 of 2019

¶3

Amit Kumar Singh @ Golu @ Amit Kumar Singhari @ Chotu Singh 2. Rakesh Bahadur @ Rakesh Kumar … … Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. S.L. Agarwal, Advocate

¶8

-----

¶9

05/15.07.2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioners are accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The 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. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged against 3 unknown persons. During the investigation, the petitioners were implicated merely on suspicion. Though the petitioners are said to be identified by the informant during the T.I.P., yet the informant who appeared during the trial as PW-1 has categorically stated that prior to Test Identification Parade, all 6 accused persons were shown to him by the police in the police station. Co-accused Shambhu Singh @ Sambhu Singh and Raju Prasad have already been granted regular bail by different Benches of this Court vide orders dated 12.04.2019 and 06.06.2019 passed in B.A. No. 2410 of 2019 and B.A. 4931 of 2019 respectively. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 10.11.2018 and as such, they may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶12

The learned A.P.P and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the petitioners’ prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur, in connection with S.T. No. 87 of 2019.

¶14

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶15

Manish

Amit Kumar Singh Alias Golu Alias Amit Kumar Singhari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh Alias Golu Alias Amit Kumar Singhari 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

Halim Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ambuj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gautam Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Malhar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Kumar Alias Ranjit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand