Allowed

Ravi Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an order rejecting bail, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside the impugned order. The court granted bail to the appellant on Rs.25,000 with sufficient sureties, citing the informant's hostility and the appellant's long detention as key factors.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Ravi Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.559 of 2019

¶2

… … Ravi Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Appellant Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

Devrani Kumari … … Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶6

¶7

For the Appellant : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Adv.

¶8

¶9

07/10.12.2019 Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on

¶10

behalf of the appellant.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶12

3. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

4. This appeal has been filed for the following relief:

¶14

“The instant criminal appeal is directed against order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Palamau in S.C./S.T. No.85 of 2018, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.1169/2018, S.C/S.T. Case No.85 of 2018 for the offence registered U/s 376 of I.P.C and 3(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the appellant. The case is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Palamau.”

¶15

5. The learned counsel for the appellant files a supplementary affidavit today during the course of hearing of this case, which is taken on record.

¶16

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R, the victim is the informant of the case and it is alleged that the present appellant had established physical relationship with the informant for about last 1 year and the appellant had refused to marry the informant and she also became pregnant. He refers to the supplementary

¶17

¶18

affidavit and the deposition of the informant of the case and submits that the age of the informant is 22 years and she has turned hostile before the learned court below. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that the appellant is in custody from 19.05.2018 and accordingly the sentence be suspended and the appellant may be released on bail.

¶19

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has no serious objection to the submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

¶20

8. Counsel for the State also supports the submission of the opposite party no.2. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that informant has turned hostile before the learned court below and the appellant has remained in custody from 19.05.2018, the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Palamau in S.C./S.T. No.85 of 2018, refusing to grant bail to the appellant, is hereby set aside. This Court directs that the appellant be enlarged 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Palamau in S.C/S.T. No.85 of 2018, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.1169/2018, on the condition that the appellant will fully cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below though FAX.

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Saurav/

Ravi Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ranjan 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

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs M/S Annapurna Cosntruction

Ram Janam Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

T K Bandopadhyay Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Pintu Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Pradeep Coke Industries And Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio

Dilip Kumar Biswas Vs the Union of India through CBI