Allowed

Ranjan N Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2022B.A./2058/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by a junior engineer in jail (since 23.12.2021) facing charges under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the IPC for alleged sub-standard construction material, the Court directed release on bail after noting investigation completion but absence of a quality audit report.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to specific conditions regarding documentation and communic

Ranjan N Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2058 of 2022

¶2

¶3

Ranjan N. Minz …. …. Petitioner/Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

---For the Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. ----

¶9

05/Dated: 04^th July, 2022

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

¶11

2. The applicant is a junior engineer who is in custody since 23.12.2021 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.32 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.632 of 2016, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was scheme for construction of a building of the year 2007. Finally, the building has been constructed and handed over on 14.07.2009. A portion of the building has collapsed on 16.08.2014. Thereafter, the matter has been locally inquired and FIR has been lodged on 09.09.2016 against this applicant alleging that sub-standard material has been used for construction of the building. Further, the investigation is complete and the applicant undertakes to participate in the trial as the applicant, himself, is a government official. On the above basis, the prayer for bail has been made. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the allegation of sub-standard material using in construction of the building has been alleged against this applicant. Vide order dated 08.06.2022, State has been directed to file a detailed counter affidavit regarding the quality audit. Although, the counter affidavit has been filed but there is no report regarding the quality audit.

¶13

It appears that on mere conjecture and surmise the present allegation has been made.

¶14

6. Be as it may, since investigation is already complete, the applicant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Latehar in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.32 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.632 of 2016, subject to condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶15

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶16

Amar/-

¶17

Ranjan N Minz v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan N Minz 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

Jagarnath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Roy Alias Tapesh Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nilesh Soni Alias Pawan Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Pandey Alias Laxman Gupta Alias Ravi Ranjan Gupta Alias Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikas Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ankit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand