Allowed

Santosh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Mar 2022A.B.A./2074/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Bengabad P.S. Case No. 131 of 2021, which involved allegations of theft of solar plates under Section 379 IPC, accepting the counsel's undertaking to remove stamp defects and deposit money.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted privilege of anticipatory bail subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- and furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties.

Santosh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2074 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Santosh Yadav

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 24.03.2022

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks from the date of this order.

¶13

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

¶14

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 131 of 2021 instituted under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶15

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed theft of solar plates. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner was working at Chhattisgarh at the relevant point of time. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-8 of the instant anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the co-accused with similar allegation has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.1530 of 2022. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to deposit Rs.10,000/- with the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih without prejudice to his defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner

¶17

be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on showing the proof of depositing Rs.10,000/- with the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and 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 -1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No.131 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶18

At the time of conclusion of the trial, the trial court will pass appropriate order regarding the money, if any, deposited by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, in connection with this case.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Pappu/

Santosh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav 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

Abhijit Mukherjee Alias Abhijit Mukhopadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopi Nath Singh Munda Vs State of Jharkhand Thr Vigila

Zuber Sheikh Alias Juber Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Rana Alias Ganesh Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarwan Prasad Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand