Allowed

Pradip Seth Alias Madan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2021B.A./9708/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 341/326/323/307/120-B/34 IPC and Arms Act, the petitioner claimed innocence and lack of antecedents. The court granted bail due to absence of injury report and cogent response from prosecution regarding FSL reports, finding the application deserved to be allowed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Pradip Seth Alias Madan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.9708 of 2021

¶3

Pradip Seth @ Madan @ Madan Seth ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -----For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. --------

¶4

02/02.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the

¶5

State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the

¶7

defects, as pointed out by the office within a period of one week.

¶8

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner– Pradip Seth @ Madan @ Madan Seth with prayer to release on bail in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.37 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No.943 of 2021 registered under Sections 341/326/323/307/120-B/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-B)a/27/35 and 25(6) of the Arms Act pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case along with other co-accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. The role of all the accused persons is general and omnibus. It is further submitted that as per the impugned order, there is no injury report and FSL report available on record. It is also submitted that as per instruction received from the Pairvikar of the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 26^th February, 2021.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the country made pistol is recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

¶11

The learned A.P.P. failed to show the injuries sustained by the injured. Even the statement of the injured was recorded by the I.O. or not, for the same no cogent response is given by the learned A.P.P.

¶12

In view of the submissions made and material on record, the bail

¶13

application of the petitioner is deserved to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶15

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶16

Rohit

Pradip Seth Alias Madan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Seth Alias Madan 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

Nandu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neeraj Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahbaj Shekh Alias Ansari Alias Sahbaj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanchan Hembrum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarif Mian Alias Diani Vs the State of Jharkhand