Allowed

Amit Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2019B.A./91/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition by an accused in Sections 379 and 411 IPC was allowed after the High Court relied on a Patna High Court judgment holding that a confessional statement recorded in one case cannot automatically implicate another accused in a different case without separate material or recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, one being a close relative.

Amit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 91 of 2019

¶2

Amit Kumar Singh …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶3

---------

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the State : A P.P

¶6

05/Dated: 05/02/2019

¶7

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 223 of 2018 for the offence under sections 379 & 411 of the I.P.C

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of “ Manoj Prasad Vs. State of Bihar” reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 564 in which it has been held as under:

¶9

“6. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the confessional statement before Paliganj Police, petitioners had given details of the crime committed which appeared similar to the crime committed in this case and on the basis of the same, Bikram Polie came to the conclusion that these petitioners may be connected with this crime also and on that basis investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been submitted in this case.

¶10

7. Confessional statement before the police on its own, is not admissible in law, more so, if the confessional statement has been recorded in connection with one case and photocopy of the same is being used in the other case.

¶11

8. Case diary was called for and the case diry does not show that there is any separate material from the copy of the confessional statement nor is there anything to show that any confessional statement was recorded by the police in the present case. This also does not appear from the record that subsequent to the confessional statement any recovery was made by the police which could connect the confessional statement directly to the crime. This is also not denied that other accused

¶12

persons including these petitioners have been allowed bail in other three cases. In the present case also except for these two petitioners, others have been allowed bail by this Court.”

¶13

Relying on aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner deserves regular bail.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Koderma in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 223 of 2018 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be close relative of the petitioner.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below through FAX.

¶16

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶17

Satyarthi/-

Amit Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sundar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Gafar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tarak Nath Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand