MD Salamat Vs the State of Jharkhand

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 270 of 2023 registered under sections 341, 323, 307, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶11

As per FIR, allegation is that on 17.11.2023, the petitioner came to the Pragya Kendra run by the informant and called money amounting Rs.50,500 in the informant’s bank account from one Sahabuddin and petitioner took Rs.50,000/- cash from the informant. While the informant was calculating the bank transactions, he found that Rs.50,500/- has been locked and when he inquired the matter from the bank, he came to know that due to cyber fraud, the amount has been locked. On 21.12.2023, while the petitioner was going by the said Pragya Kendra, the informant stopped him and demanded his money, then the petitioner got furious and started abusing and assaulted him and pressed his neck with intention to kill him but with the help of locals, he was handed over to the police. Hence, the FIR was lodged.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. Noting has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has no concern with the alleged transaction. The main accused-Md. Irshad and Safira Praveen have committed all the alleged transactions and he is a simply driver of Safira Praveen. Petitioner has no knowledge about the alleged transactions. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion

¶13

of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.12.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the above named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released 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 learned ACJM, Hazaribag in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 270 of 2023 with condition that petitioner shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless his physical appearance is dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Pappu/

MD Salamat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Salamat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonaram Korah Alias Sonaram Koda Alias Mata Vs the State of Jharkhand

Usha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shahrukh Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand