Manish Kumar Gupta Alias Manish Kumar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Manish Kumar Gupta Alias Manish Kumar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023, subject to the condition laid down under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and to the petitioner appearing before the Court below on each and every date as and when required, failing which appropriate order for cancellation of bail shall be passed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023 who is in custody since 23.11.2023 with the charge-sheet submitted, deserves to be enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023, subject to the condition laid down under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

Bail further conditioned on the petitioner appearing before the learned Court below on each and every date as and when required, failing which the learned Court below shall pass appropriate order for cancellation of the bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted by a single-judge Bench (Navneet Kumar, J.), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 12040 of 2023, Order No. 05, decided 22 March 2024. Petitioner Manish Kumar Gupta @ Manish Kumar, accused in Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 47(a), 47(b), 47(c), 47€, 55 and 52(D) of the Jharkhand Excise (Amendment) Act 2015, enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, subject to the condition laid down under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and further subject to the petitioner appearing before the Court below on each and every date as and when required, failing which appropriate order shall be passed for cancellation of bail. Decided after hearing both sides and perusing the case records, in light of the submissions advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case. Supporting submissions on record: petitioner in jail since 23.11.2023; no criminal history; charge-sheet submitted; seized liquor never sent for F.S.L. report; co-accused Sunil Prajapti @ Sunil Prajapati granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 910 of 2024 (order dated 14.03.2024) by a co-ordinate Bench. State side (Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.) opposed, submitting that a huge quantity of illicit liquor was seized per the seizure list forming part of the F.I.R., but did not controvert the absence of criminal history or the F.S.L. point.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12040 of 2023

Manish Kumar Gupta @ Manish Kumar ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. --------

Order No. 05 / Dated 22^nd March, 2024

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(a), 47(b), 47(c), 47€, and 55 and 52(D) of Jharkhand Excise (Amendment) Act 2015.

The gist of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner is involved in the sale and purchase of illicit liquor and number of incriminating materials including liquor of different brands is said to have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused Sunil Prajapti @ Sunil Prajapati has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 in A.B.A. No. 910 of 2024 and this petitioner is in jail since 23.11.2023 and there is no criminal history against this petitioner. Charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore, there is no possibility of tampering the evidence and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

It is also submitted that there is no iota of evidence in order to support the case of the prosecution as to whether the seized liquor was spurious or not because the same has never been sent for F.S.L. report. 6. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that huge quantity of illicit liquor has been seized from the possession of this petitioner as evident from the seizure list which is a part of the F.I.R. but did not controvert this fact that there is no criminal history against this petitioner.

B.A. No. 12040 of 2023

-2-

Learned A.P.P. also did not controvert this fact that the alleged seized liquor had ever been sent for F.S.L. report during the course of investigation although charge-sheet in this case has been submitted.

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.

In the light of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and further, subject to the condition that the petitioner will appear before the learned Court below on each and every date as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

D.S./ J.Minj