Mukesh Chik Badaik Alias Mukesh Chik Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. No. 149 of 2023 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 136 of 2023, registered for the offence under Section 115/120 (B)(1) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B)a/25(b)/25(6)/35 of the Arms Act read under Section 17 of CLA Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti.

¶11

As per FIR, allegation is that on 30.11.2022 at around 13.35, informant received a secret information that one of the active member of the P.L.F.I. group is travelling to Ranchi in the Koyal-Karo Bus bearing registration no. JH 01DM 7344, with arms and ammunition, with intention to commit an offence. It is alleged that after informing the superiors, police team intercepted the bus at Churgi River Bridge near Torpa and apprehended one accused Arjun Munda who was trying to flee, seeing the police. Upon search of the apprehended accused person, in presence of the Bus driver and conductor, one country made pistol and 0.315 bore cartridge was recovered from his possession. It is further alleged that the accused persons failed to provide any valid and legal documents pertaining to the seized arms and ammunition. It is further alleged that the accused revealed that in connivance with petitioner and one person named as Michael Ghudiya who has been said

¶12

to be the P.L.F.I. commander were planning to murder a person in Anantpur area and the entire plan was only known to the said person named as Michel. In order to execute the conspiracy arms and ammunition was being carried from Ranchi to Raniya and the accused persons admitted that the weapons were collected from Ring Road, Ranchi which was supplied by two unknown boys. It has been further alleged that money for transporting the weapons from Ranch to Raniya was transferred through online medium by one Surendra Baraik, who was networking the agent of P.L.F.I. and said Surendra Baraik was in direct contact of Dinesh Gope, the supremo of P.L.F.I. It has been further alleged that the petitioner alongwith one Pankaj Mahto were waiting in Raniya for the apprehended accused person and they were collectively supposed the meet the said Michael Gudiya, who would have guided them to commit the offence of murder.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the FIR. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. No recovery has been made except purported two piece of donation receipt belonging to P.L.F.I. One key pad mobile of Jtel company has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 01.12.2022 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the present case, hence he does not deserve bail.

¶15

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation coupled with materials available against petitioner,

¶16

I am inclined to release the 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 Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in connection with S.T. No. 149 of 2023 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 136 of 2023 subject to the conditions:-

¶17

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every

¶18

date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶19

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence

¶20

till the conclusion of the trial.

¶21

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

In case of violation of the aforesaid condition the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself.

¶23

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶24

R.K/

Mukesh Chik Badaik Alias Mukesh Chik Baraik v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Chik Badaik Alias Mukesh Chik Baraik 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

Vikesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Prasad Alias Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jawed Akhtar Alias MD Javed Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Tarkeshwar Ganjhu Alias Tarkeshwar Ganju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand