Allowed

Tuntun Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jun 2020B.A./2987/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was heard via audio/video conferencing. The petitioner, accused under IPC Section 395 with charges filed under Section 392, sought bail citing prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. The court granted bail with a sum of Rs. 20,000 and twelve sureties, conditioned on full cooperation in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, conditioned on full cooperation in the trial.

Tuntun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2987 of 2020

¶2

Tuntun Yadav … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.

¶6

-----

¶7

02/05.06.2020 The present bail application has been taken up today through Audio/Video conferencing.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (chargesheet has been submitted under Section 392 IPC).

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2019 passed in B.A. No. 7350 of 2019. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily on the ground that the petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the present case since 03.05.2019 and there is no positive progress in the trial. Though the F.I.R. was earlier instituted under Section 395 IPC, yet after investigation, the police has submitted the chargesheet under Section 392 IPC. The impugned order dated 24.02.2020 would itself suggest that even after a year, the charge against the petitioner has not yet been framed.

¶11

The learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the present case for more than a year, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named 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 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 228 of 2018, corresponding

¶12

to G.R. No. 710 of 2019, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date unless his physical appearance for a particular date is exempted by specific order of the trial court, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶13

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶14

Manish

Tuntun Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuntun Yadav 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

Madam Mohan Mishra Alias M M Mishra Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Bokaro Steel Plant And Anr.

Dilip Kumar Jha Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Bokaro Steel Plant And Anr.

Manoj Kumar Nanda Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Bokaro Steel Plant And Anr.

Nipu Kumar Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indrajeet Kumar Paswan Alias Indrajit Kumar Adisan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Chand Purti Alias Chumnu Purti Vs the State of Jharkhand