The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer for regular bail in two criminal cases, considering the recovery of property and rejection of bail for a co-accused.
Petitioner's prayer for regular bail was rejected.
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.7350 of 2019
Tuntun Yadav
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, A.P.P. ----- Order No.02 Date: 27.08.2019
Date: 27.08.2019
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 395 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. Initially the first information report was lodged against unknown miscreants. The petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of his confessional statement made before the police which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. After recovery of Bolero Pick-up van another first information report was lodged being Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.481 of 2018 in which the petitioner has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya in B.P. No.82 of 2019. As such, the petitioner who is in judicial custody since 3rd May, 2019 may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the looted Bolero Pick-up van was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused- Iklakh Ansari by Civil Lines Gaya police. The prayer for bail of the said co-accused has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16th August, 2019
-2-
in B.A. No.6777 of 2019. As such, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.228 of 2018.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayer for bail stands rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in.connection.with.the.criminal.cases.mentioned.
Tuntun Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
