Allowed

Bal Mukund Kumar Nirala Alias Rahul Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Feb 2021B.A./6/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving preparation of spurious liquor. The court condoned defects in the bail application based on the petitioner's counsel's personal undertaking to correct them within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount that he shall cooperate with the trial.

Bal Mukund Kumar Nirala Alias Rahul Sharma Vs the State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6 of 2021

¶2

Bal Mukund Kumar Nirala @ Rahul Sharma

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Addl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 01.02.2021

¶10

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.89 of 2020 registered under sections 467/468/471/420/272/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 47(a)/47(f) & 52(d) of the Excise Act.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was preparing spurious liquor in the guise of preparing purified water. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.08.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the co-accused person has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2020, passed in B.A. No. 11338 of 2020 . It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner

¶17

on bail. Accordingly, the 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 to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.89 of 2020 with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Sonu-Gunjan/

Bal Mukund Kumar Nirala Alias Rahul Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Mukund Kumar Nirala Alias Rahul Sharma 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

Birendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jainandan Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhi Mani Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ejaz Ahmad Alias MD Ejaz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punit Ishwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Verma Alias Sunita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand