Allowed

Tinku Alias Mahtab Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2021B.A./2497/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to petitioners in a robbery case upon their undertaking to remove stamp defects and cooperate with the trial. The court overlooked defects noted by the stamp reporter due to the counsel's personal undertaking. Bail was fixed at Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties conditioned to cooperate with the trial.

Tinku Alias Mahtab Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2497 of 2021

¶2

Tinku @ Mahtab Alam

¶3

Sahil Ansari @ Md. Sahil Ansari … Petitioners Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.V. Pradhan, Addl. P.P. ------

¶8

Order No.02 Dated- 09.03.2021

¶9

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No.35 of 2018 (G.R. No.957 of 2018) registered under sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in commission of robbery. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and though the petitioners are not named in the FIR yet without putting them on T.I. Parade, charge sheet has been submitted against them and the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 25.01.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No.35 of 2018 (G.R. No.957 of 2018) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu-Gunjan/

Tinku Alias Mahtab Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Alias Mahtab Alam 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

Jitendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikraj Soni Alias Punni Alias Vikraj Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ulman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nikhil Keshari Alias Nikhil Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand