Allowed

MD Irfan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020B.A./7761/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a regular bail application filed by the petitioner, who was in custody since May 18, 2020, for offenses of theft and attempt to cheat. The court allowed bail subject to the condition that procedural defects be removed within 30 days, directing the petitioner to furnish a bond with two sureties and comply with COVID-19 guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of similar amount.

MD Irfan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION] B.A. No. 7761 of 2020

¶2

…....

¶3

Md. Irfan …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶6

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

¶7

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P -----

¶8

02/Dated: 06/10/2020:

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect nos.5(e) and 9(i) 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 18.05.2020.

¶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. J. N. Upadhyay and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Kharswan P.S. Case No.26 of 2019, for the offence registered under Sections 457/380 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the FIR, it is alleged that in the night of 20^th May, 2019 when the informant was sleeping in his house and while opening the door because of hot weather, the unknown accused entered into the house and has taken away two mobiles of Samsung Company bearing Mobile No.93049-59969 and another Mobile No.926398588 and cash of Rs.22,000/-. In the same night, the accused has also committed theft in the house of Dukhu Lohar and has taken three mobiles bearing Nos.87090-83836, 7321039534 and 84346-70087 and a cash of Rs.3,000/-.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR nor anything has been recovered from the house or possession of the petitioner rather the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused, Umar Ali who confessed his guilt in another case i.e. Seraikella P.S. Case No.131 of 2019 and from possession of said Umar Ali one of

¶16

-2-

¶17

the mobile phone has been recovered, but nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 18.05.2020, as such, he may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this petitioner has criminal antecedent, as such, he may not be enlarged on regular bail.

¶20

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his name got transpired on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and considering the period of custody of the petitioner from i.e. 18.05.2020, this Court is inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner (Md. Irfan), 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 A.C.J.M. at Seraikella in connection with Kharswan P.S. Case No.26 of 2019 on the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case namely, Menhdi Hussain, S/o Asgar Ali, R/o Kadamdiha, Kharswan, P.O.& P.S.Kharswan, District- Seraikella-Kharswan (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.2552 5305 6145 before this Court in the bail application.

¶22

Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing No. 2552 5305 6145 of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.

¶23

(ii) Another bailor shall be mother/father/brother/sister/son.

¶24

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

¶25

(iv) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up. (v) The Civil Surgeon, Seraikella 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.

MD Irfan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Irfan 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