Allowed

Amit Mistry Alias Amit Lohra Alias Amit Jee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2019B.A./5732/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants regular bail to the petitioner, an accused in a case involving offences under IPC and Arms Act, who claims false implication. The court directs release upon posting a bond with two sureties, subject to appearing before the trial court as required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to appearing before trial court.

Amit Mistry Alias Amit Lohra Alias Amit Jee Vs the State… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.5732 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Amit Mistry @ Amit Kumar @ Amit Lohra @ Amit Jee. .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-VersusThe State of Jharkhand. .......... Opp. Party.

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State : APP ----- Order No.02 Date: 18.07.2019

¶8

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 25(1B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act; and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has committed no offence as alleged. Though the petitioner has been named in the first information report, yet he was not arrested on the spot by the police. It is alleged that co-accused Chitaman Ganjhu @ Chitaman Bhokhta and Kamlesh Yadav were apprehended by the police after an encounter took place. The name of several other co-accused persons including the petitioner surfaced in the confessional statement of said co-accused- Chitaman Ganjhu, who has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19^th April, 2019 in B.A. No.2727 of 2018. Other co-accused persons, namely, Chhotu Ram, Sudhir Mistry, Vinod Yadav, Mithun Mistri @ Manish Ji @ Manish Mistri @ Vikash Kumar and Rajeshwar Sao @ Bhola Sao @ Rajeshwar Prasad @ Bhola Ji have also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. As such, the petitioner who is in judicial custody since 19^th April, 2019 may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶10

Learned APP opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Additional Chief Judicial

¶12

-2-

¶13

Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Manika P.S. Case No.92 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.777 of 2017, 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.

¶14

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶15

Sanjay/

Amit Mistry Alias Amit Lohra Alias Amit Jee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Mistry Alias Amit Lohra Alias Amit Jee 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

Achhu Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sita Ram Karmkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naushad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagat Mardi Alias Jagta Mardi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhdeo Korah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Seikh Firoz Vs the State of Jharkhand