Allowed

Kundan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2021B.A./6886/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted regular bail to the petitioners in the Tandwa P.S. Case (FIR No.68 of 2020) for offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 66C/66D of the I.T. Act, observing domestic circumstances and co-accused bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties of like amount subject to specific conditions including monthly police appearances and mobile number maintenance.

Kundan Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.6886 of 2020

¶3

Kundan Das 2. Purushuttam Das … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --- For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶5

---

¶6

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶7

---

¶8

05/03.03.2021: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶9

The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.68 of 2020, for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 (C) & 66 (D) of the I.T. Act.

¶10

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 31.05.2020. The FIR has been lodged against the owner of the mobile no.8388081095, but the said mobile no. does not stand in their name and further learned senior counsel has stated that similarly situated co-accused namely Mithlesh Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2021 passed in B.A. No. 7003 of 2020. There is no criminal antecedent against these petitioners. On the above facts, prayer for bail has been made.

¶11

On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer

¶12

for bail.

¶13

Considering the material available on record and the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail and no criminal antecedent has been reported against them, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.68 of 2020, subject to the

¶14

¶15

following conditions:- (a) One of the bailer should be the close relative of the petitioners. (b) The petitioners will appear before the concerned police station once in a month (c) The petitioners will submit selfattested photocopy of their Aadhar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶16

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶17

Amar/-

Kundan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Das 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

Janardan Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police

Ramanuj Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Dayanand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mobin Ansari Alias Momin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand