Kaleshwar Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Kaleshwar Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to petitioner Kaleshwar Murmu on execution of a bail-bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka (Jama PS Case No. 109 of 2017 / GR No. 1137 of 2017), subject to co-operation with investigation, appearance before the Investigating Officer when noticed, and submission of mobile number and Aadhaar card copy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Kaleshwar Murmu, a vendor not named in the FIR but arrested and in custody since 20.10.2023 in connection with Jama PS Case No. 109 of 2017 / GR No. 1137 of 2017 (Dumka) concerning an alleged MNREGA-scheme matter, should be granted privilege of (regular) bail despite his one criminal antecedent.

Court's answer

Having heard both sides and considering the facts and circumstances, the Bench is inclined to release the petitioner on bail upon executing a bail-bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, in connection with Jama PS Case No. 109 of 2017, corresponding to GR No. 1137 of 2017.

Ratio / Principle

The bail grant is made subject to conditions: the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him, and submit his mobile number and a photocopy of his Aadhaar card in the court below with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during the pendency of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, single-judge bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra), B.A. No. 3023 of 2024, decision dated 27.06.2024. Regular bail granted to petitioner Kaleshwar Murmu in connection with Jama PS Case No. 109 of 2017, corresponding to GR No. 1137 of 2017 (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka). Petitioner, per counsel, is a vendor who supplied construction articles for the alleged MNREGA scheme, had no role in the scheme or in passing bills, and is not named in the FIR, which was registered against Bindu Mandal and Enamul Ansari; he was in custody since 20.10.2023. State opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner is a vendor of certain goods with one criminal antecedent. Bail fixed on a bail-bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of like amount each, subject to conditions of co-operation with the investigation, appearance before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed, and submission of mobile number and Aadhaar card copy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency. Counsel also noted four other accused persons (government servants/beneficiaries and contractors associated with the scheme) had been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 3023 of 2024

Kaleshwar Murmu

... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand

... Opposite Party

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP

06/27.06.2024: Heard both the counsels.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The FIR was registered against one Bindu Mandal and Enamul Ansari. The petitioner was a vendor and he had no role in the matter of MNREGA scheme or even in passing of the bills. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has supplied construction articles for the alleged scheme and there is nothing to link or drag him in the alleged misappropriation. The learned counsel has further submitted that four accused persons, who are government servants or beneficiaries and the contractors associated with the scheme have been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 20.10.2023. Therefore, this petitioner may be granted privilege of bail.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is a vendor of certain goods and that he has one criminal antecedent.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail on executing bail-bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dumka, in connection with Jama PS Case No. 109 of 2017, corresponding to GR No. 1137 of 2017, subject to the conditions that the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the case.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

S.B.