Allowed

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024B.A./4797/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application of an accused in a kidnapping-for-ransom case. Granting bail citing parity with co-accused already released on bail, nature of allegations and period in custody, court ordered release on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to attendance, no similar offence, and no tampering conditions.

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.4797 of 2024

¶3

Dilip Kumar Singh … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Adv. For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P.

¶8

Order No.06/Dated- 22.08.2024

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Pathrol P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur.

¶11

As per FIR, allegation is that 27/28.11.2023, the informant accompanied by four other persons were going to Barat from Simratari to Bherwa, Madhupur in an Alto Car bearing Reg. No.JH10BZ-8940. At about 12:30 A.M, near Dubey Baba Mandir, Kalhor More, his vehicle was intercepted by an Ertiga Car and a Swift Dzire Car. Subsequently, four unknown persons came out from the Swift Dzire Car and forcefully abducted Mithun Das and taken away by their vehicle towards Pathrol. Later on, the unknown miscreants demanded ransom of Rs.80 lakhs.

¶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 only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Prabhat Singh who has been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in B.A. No.508 of 2024 vide order dated 02.04.2024. All the allegations of abduction and demand of ransom are entirely false and fabricated and the victim was never kidnapped. The car, which is alleged to be involved in this case has not been seized and the said car does not belong to the petitioner. During investigation, no materials have been collected against the

¶13

petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged crime. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 14.04.2024 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate 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. It is lastly submitted that co-accused person with similar allegation has already been extended privilege of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024 passed in B.A. No. 5042 of 2024. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner but so far the matter of parity is concerned, it is admitted that the case of present petitioner stands on similar footing with the co-accused persons who have been granted regular bail in this case.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in connection with Pathrol P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 subject to the conditions:-

¶16

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶17

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

¶18

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

¶19

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶20

Sachin

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Mani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Kalim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sahil Gagrai Alias Ajay Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand