Allowed

Bandhu Shukla Alias Ajit Kumar Shukla v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020B.A./7748/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the bail application of a petitioner charged with extortion under sections 386 and 387 IPC. The court directed release on bail subject to strict conditions including regular appearance before the police station and COVID-19 protocols.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail with Rs. 50,000 bond and two sureties of like amount each.

Bandhu Shukla Alias Ajit Kumar Shukla Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

B.A. No. 7748 of 2020

¶3

Bandhu Shukla @ Ajit Kumar Shukla ….. Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

02/Dated: 06/10/2020

¶9

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect no. 9 (i) to 9 (iii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 23.09.2020, have 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 06.06.2018.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No. 107/2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 705/2018, for the offence registered under Sections 386 & 387 I.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is alleged by the informant that an extortion of Rs. 10 lacs was demanded in the name of Bandhu Shukla by the mobile phone no. 8271962859 on the mobile phone of the informant and subsequently on next date also call was made on mobile no.7488548040.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only because the petitioner has fourteen criminal antecedents in different

¶16

-2-

¶17

police station in the district of Palamau and Ranchi, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, though petitioner has nothing to do with the mobile used by the criminal bearing mobile no. 8271962859, which stands in the name of one Avinash Prasad Shukla.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that police has not made Avinash Prasad Shukla an accused nor Avinash Prasad Shukla has alleged that this petitioner has taken his mobile phone for demanding extortion, rather police has left Avinash Prasad Shukla on the ground that Avinash Prasad Shukla has lost his mobile, but he has not informed either to the police or to the SIM card company to block the mobile number, petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2018 without any legal material in the present case. The petitioner is in custody only because of the fourteen criminal cases are pending against the petitioner of similar nature, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any strict condition imposed by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the memo of material against the petitioner sent to him by Police Inspector-cum-Officer-incharge, Daltonganj Town P.S. whereby it is alleged that petitioner was apprehended in connection Lesliganj P.S. Case No.45/2018 dated 04.04.2018 under Section 414 IPC and Section 25 (1-B) A/26 of Arms Act and in the said case, petitioner has confessed his guilt of committing such offence in the present case, except there is no legal material against the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances of the case only because of criminal antecedents, petitioner is languishing in custody on 06.06.2018, as such, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No. 107/2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 705/2018 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj on the following conditions:

¶21

-3-

¶22

(i) One of the bailors shall be the deponent / pairvikar of the present case namely, Nirbhay Kumar Shukla, son of Chandra Dip Shukla, resident of Singraha Khurd, P.O. & P.S. - Daltonganj, District – Palamau, who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing number 8602 1230 3555 before this Court in the bail application.

¶23

Office is directed to send the photocopy of UID Card bearing no. 8602 1230 3555 of deponent alongwith this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor .

¶24

(ii) Another bailor shall be mother / brother / sister of the petitioner. (iii) Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

¶25

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Daltonganj (Town) 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 .

¶26

Any default by the petitioner will entitle the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (v) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up.

¶27

(vi) The Civil Surgeon, Palamau 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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶30

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶31

Sunil-Jay/

Bandhu Shukla Alias Ajit Kumar Shukla v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandhu Shukla Alias Ajit Kumar Shukla 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

Birendra Kumar Alias Mangar Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Afjal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsher Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guddu Singh Alias Nikhil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand