Allowed

Shahnawaz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2020B.A./7511/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand entrusted the petitioners to remove defects under a personal undertaking and ignored the stamp reporter's defects. The Court enlarged the petitioners on bail in connection with a case under Section 379 IPC, directing furnishing of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties.

Shahnawaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7511 of 2020

¶2

Shahnawaz Alam

¶3

Ahmad Raza … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 03.10.2020

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

¶10

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of regular bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.157 of 2020 registered under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed theft of motorcycle of the informant and the same has been recovered from the petitioner no.1. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 07.05.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 8 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount

¶15

each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.157 of 2020.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu-Gunjan/

Shahnawaz Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaz Alam 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

Mrs Rekha Shankar Vs Sri Kumud Kumar Jha

Mahabir Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sadruddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bittu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balku Bedia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Chakrawarti Alias Amit Kumar Chakrawarty Vs the State of Jharkhand