Allowed

Umesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2020B.A./7696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a bail application filed by a petitioner in custody facing extortion charges under IPC Sections 387 and 506. The Court allowed bail, noting lack of incrimination in the evidence and separation of the petitioner's antecedent case, while imposing special reporting conditions to the police station.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties in connected Bero P.S. Case No. 45/2020, subject to special reporting and health conditions.

Umesh Mahto 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. 7696 of 2020

¶3

Umesh Mahto ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------

¶4

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

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

¶6

--------- 02/Dated: 05/10/2020

¶7

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect no. 9 (i), as per Stamp Reporting dated 25.09.2020, has not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and has prayed that the bail application may be heard, as it is a regular bail application of the petitioner, who is in custody since 11.06.2020.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Bero P.S. Case No. 45/2020, for the offence registered under Sections 387, 506 I.P.C. as it is alleged that on 06.06.2020 an extortion was demanded from mobile no.9870376026 on the mobile phone of the informant bearing no.9934884383 demanding Rs.10 lacs by the PLFI. Against such calls, which was made on 07.06.2020 and 08.06.2020, the petitioner was apprehended on 11.06.2020. It is alleged that said mobile number was recovered from possession of the petitioner, though petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor any payment was paid by the informant to PLFI nor petitioner is member of PLFI and the alleged recovery of mobile phone has not been

¶12

-2-

¶13

connected from the CDR to the mobile phone of the informant with regard to the demand of extortion of Rs.10 lacs as alleged in the F.I.R., rather as because petitioner has criminal antecedent of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.324/2014 under Section 302 IPC, the police has wrongly implicated the petitioner in such case where petitioner has no such criminal antecedent, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any conditions as he is in custody since 11.06.2020.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the alleged mobile has been recovered along with several incriminating article and prayed that petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances of the case, the incriminating materials are not such, which will constitute an offence against the petitioner and the petitioner has no such criminal antecedent with regard to an offence under Section 387 IPC, rather a case under Section 302 IPC and CDR has not been verified by the police, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Bero P.S. Case No. 45/2020 to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi on the following conditions:

¶16

(i) One of the bailors shall be the deponent / pairvikar of the present case namely, Kalindra Mahto, son of Sidhu Mahto, resident of Village - Fatepur, P.O. - Govindpur, P.S. - Lapung, District – Ranchi, who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing number 4548 3533 6894 before this Court in the bail application.

¶17

Office is directed to send the photocopy of UID Card bearing no. 4548 3533 6894 of deponent alongwith this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor . (ii) Another bailor shall be father / mother / brother / sister of the petitioner.

¶18

-3-

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Bero P.S. on 1^st Monday of each English Calendar Month at 10:30 a.m. and shall put his signature on the Register maintained by the Officer-in-Charge till conclusion of the trial .

¶21

(v) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up.

¶22

(vi) The Civil Surgeon, Ranchi is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if he is infected with corona virus, he shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. (vii) The petitioner shall follow all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as presently Country is passing through pandemic of Covid-19.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶24

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶25

Sunil-Jay/

Umesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Mahto 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

Alfa Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tasran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bimal Tatwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Mohli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Kumar Alias Sonu Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Alias Mangar Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand