Sonu Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 358 of 2024

Sonu Kumar Singh	... Petitioner
	-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party With
	B.A. No. 657 of 2024
Sarfraj Alam @ Md. Sarfa	raj Alam ... Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party With
	B.A. No. 716 of 2024
Tohid Ansari	... Petitioner
	-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party With
	B.A. No. 726 of 2024
Minhazuddin Ali @ Minh	az Ali ...
Petitioner
	-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party With
	B.A. No. 771 of 2024
Krishna Nayak	... Petitioner
	-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party With
	B.A. No. 1240 of 2024
Nawaj Akhtar	... Petitioner -Versus-
The State of Jharkhand	… ... Opposite Party
CORAM :- HON'	BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petiti	oner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate;
	Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate;
	Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate; Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Advocate,
For the State	:- Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP; Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP; Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP; Mr. Achinto Sen, APP; Mr. S.K. Dubey, APP; Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
For the Infor	mant : - Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
09/20.06.2024:All the c	... ounsels are present.

¶3

Learned counsels for the petitioner submitted that allegations have been made against many persons and have been made accused in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 240 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 3219 of

¶4

2023, S.T. No. 171 of 2024, for the offences registered under Sections 307, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B) a, 25(6), 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Shri S. Birua, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi.

¶5

The counsels further submit that many persons have committed the offence but the shooters are yet to be apprehended. The counsels further submit that three persons i.e. Chitranjan Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, and Krishna Nayak have been named in the FIR. From the FIR it appears that Chitranjan Kumar is the main conspirator who has been granted bail vide order dated 16.05.24 passed in BA No. 3921 of 2024. Therefore, the learned counsels submit that when the kingpin has already been granted the bail, or in case he gets acquitted then favourable consequences may be accrued to other co-accused persons. The counsel further submits that another co-accused person namely Pankaj Kumar Gupta has also been granted bail vide order dated 29.04.2024 in BA No.2056 of 2024. Several other co-accused such as Basant Abraham Lugun, Jagdev Prasad Verma, Abhilasa Devi, Aman Kumar, Harsh Raj and Ankit Kumar have also been granted bail vide orders dated 20.2.24, 18.3.24, 25.1.24, 20.2.24, 20.2.24 and 26.2.24 passed in BA Nos. 12321 of 2023, 1028 of 2024, 11852 of 2023, 12366 of 2023, 12141of 2023 and 321 of 2024 respectively. Learned senior counsel prayed that petitioner, Krishna Nayak and all other petitioners as listed aforesaid, may be granted the privilege of bail.

¶6

Learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that in the conspiracy there was active role as well as passive role played by these petitioners. The counsel further submitted that Chhitranjan Kumar has already been released on bail and he was definitely having a major role and also planning and pursuing the same from the confines of the jail. As far as Sarfaraz Alam, Tohid Ansari, Minhazuddin Ali have examined the place of occurrence prior to the day of offence and they provided the vehicles in which the shooters fled away and also assisted them and also from their possession arms have been recovered. As far as Sonu Kumar is concerned, Chhitranjan Kumar asked the money from his wife Abhilasa Devi, who had conveyed the same via Sonu Kumar and Sonu Kumar had conveyed the same to the shooters and therefore he has also played a significant role in the alleged offence. Nawaj Akhtar, also provided logistics support in the crime and also assisted the shooters to flee. The counsel further submitted that Krishna Nayak had also advanced or routed money for the shooters.

¶7

Learned counsels for the State have endorsed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Informant.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in the facts and circumstances on record, and the cited bail orders, the petitioners, named above, is ordered to be released on bail on executing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two

¶9

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 240 of 2023 subject to the conditions that:-

¶10

i) the petitioners shall attend each and every date of trial unless it is dispensed with by the learned court below and

¶11

ii) the petitioners shall submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhaar Card and mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court

¶12

iii)the petitioners shall report to the concerned police station on every second and fourth Saturday of the month, between 01:00 and 05:00 p.m. for one year, failing which or if any adverse remarks regarding their non-appearance at the police station, his bail-bond shall be liable to be cancelled. Any exemption to such attendance shall be done so after direction from the learned Court below.

¶13

Moreover, they shall not in any manner either intimidate or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidences in any manner what so ever.

¶14

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶15

Abha/-

Sonu Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar Singh 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

Daya Shankar Saha Alias Guddu Saha Alias Guddu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Margaret Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Minhazuddin Ali Alias Minhaz Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarfraj Alam Alias MD Sarfaraj Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tohid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand