Allowed

Bablu Das Alias Anirudh Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2022B.A./2477/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi allowed bail to the petitioner accused of offences under the IPC, Arms Act, and Explosive Substance Act. The court noted the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was arrayed solely based on a confessional statement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Bablu Das Alias Anirudh Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 2477 of 2022

¶3

Bablu Das @ Anirudh Das.…...... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand. ………… Opp. Party

¶4

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:-Video Conferencing

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : ----

¶6

2/09.03.2022 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 2.15 P.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶7

Defects, pointed out by the office, are hereby ignored for the present.

¶8

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. No one appears on behalf of the State.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 120(B), 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶10

There is allegation that some unknown persons attacked and assaulted the informant by hurling bomb and by using firearms causing injury.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused. He submits that the only material against this petitioner is his own confessional statement that he was involved in the crime.

¶12

After hearing the petitioner, I have gone through the impugned order, which suggests that though there are some criminal antecedents against this petitioner, but the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been arrayed in this case only on the basis of his own confessional statement.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that the name of this petitioner transpired on his own confessional statement, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 387 of 2021 (G.R. No. 47 of 2022), subject to the condition that

¶14

-2-

¶15

the petitioner will personally appear once in a month before the Trial Court and will mark his attendance till completion of the trial, failing which, Trial Court will take all steps for his re-arrest.

¶16

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶17

Mukund/-cp.3

Bablu Das Alias Anirudh Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Das Alias Anirudh 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Geeta Devi And Ors.

Shajid Raja Alias Sajid Raja Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lukman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brach Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Singh And Anr.

Kauleshwar Ganjhu Alias Bokha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Benam Alias Bella Alias Benam Uraon Vs the State of Jharkhand