Kamlesh Singh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 92 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 808 of 2023, registered for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat.

¶12

As per FIR, allegation is that on 15.07.2023 at about 10.30 p.m one Mahindra Scorpio S3, Model 2019 bearing registration no. JH 05 CL 4636 was parked opposite to the quarter no. G VII/24. Next morning, the said car was missing and upon GPS tracking, it was discovered that the scorpio was stolen at around 2:08 a.m.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR rather his name has been disclosed by the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar. It is further submitted that other Co-accused, namely, Binod Kumar has been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 4130 of 2024 vide order dated 17.05.2024. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 02.03.2024 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

¶14

manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that it is a case of theft of vehicle which was recovered from the co-accused person and petitioner has one criminal antecedent, hence he does not deserve bail.

¶16

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation coupled with materials available against petitioner, 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. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 92 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 808 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

¶22

prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

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.

¶24

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶25

R.K/

Kamlesh Singh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Singh Yadav 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

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imran Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rituwa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Anwar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Saw Alias Bittu Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand