Allowed

Bimal Tatwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2020B.A./7567/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous jurisdiction order disposed of a bail application. The High Court of Jharkhand granted regular bail to the petitioner, who assaulted a relative, conditioning release on a bond, defendant's appearance, and medical clearance to curb COVID-19 transmission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties pending medical checkup and compliance with COVID-19 guidelines.

Bimal Tatwa Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]

¶2

B.A. No. 7567 of 2020

¶3

…....

¶4

Bimal Tatwa …… Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶7

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P -----

¶8

02/Dated: 03/10/2020:

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect nos.5(e) and 9(i) to 9(iii) in the bail application as pointed out by the stamp reporter but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard as it is a regular bail application in which petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2020.

¶10

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merits but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts.

¶11

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defects.

¶12

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Roy and learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.K. Appu.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.40 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 341/323/325/504/506/307/34 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the FIR, it is alleged that this petitioner has assaulted the informant, Dukhan Tatwa, who is uncle of the petitioner on his right hand and right leg by means of lathi causing fracture, but even on the perusal of the FIR and the injury report there is no material to allege that this petitioner has intention to kill the informant, Dukhan Tatwa. So far other injuries on different injured are concerned that has been alleged against other named accused persons but not against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2020, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail by putting any condition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the FIR, this petitioner has assaulted by means of lathi

¶17

-2-

¶18

upon the informant, who has sustained injuries on his right hand and right leg by means of lathi causing fracture, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on regular bail.

¶19

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and that parties are agnates and this petitioner has assaulted the informant, who is uncle of the petitioner on his right hand and right leg by means of lathi but not on the vital part and considering the custody of the petitioner since 01.06.2020, this Court is inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner (Bimal Tatwa), 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 learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.40 of 2020 on the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case namely, Mohan Ray, S/o Late Maru Ray, R/o Village- Damvsingha, P.O.- Basukinath, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.2373 3746 2585 before this Court in the bail application.

¶21

Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing No. 2373 3746 2585 of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.

¶22

(ii) Another bailor shall be wife/maternal grand uncle/maternal grandfather/brother-in-law.

¶23

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial.

¶24

(vi) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical checkup.

¶25

(v) The Civil Surgeon, Dumka is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if require, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶26

(vi) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19.

¶27

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶28

Sandeep/R.S.

Bimal Tatwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Tatwa 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

Satyajit Banerjee And Ors. Vs Hira Laxmi Mehta And Ors.

Sri Ram Padarath Singh and Anr. Vs the Union of India through the General Manager South Eastern Railway

The Manager Cholamandalm M S General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Basanti Devi

Rahul Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alfa Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand