Premchand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Premchand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma, subject to cooperation in the criminal proceeding and attendance on each and every date of trial, failing which the Court below may cancel the bail as per law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in Telaiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 (Sections 379, 411 IPC) who claims innocence, points to a submitted charge-sheet and remote risk of evidence-tampering, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the State's objection founded on his criminal history and recovery of stolen motorcycles at his instance.

Court's answer

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 / G.R. No. 260 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

The bail is conditional: the petitioner must cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Trial Court and remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial, failing which the Court below shall pass appropriate orders for cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Allowed — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 6337 of 2024 (Order dated 04.09.2024, Navneet Kumar, J.): Premchand Kumar, accused in Telaiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 / G.R. No. 260 of 2024, registered under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma, is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each. The petitioner, in custody since 10.05.2024 with the charge-sheet already submitted, had claimed he merely purchased a motorcycle found to be stolen and was innocent of the theft; the State (S.P.P. Jitendra Pandey) opposed bail, describing him as a man of criminal history from whose possession several stolen motorcycles were said to have been recovered at his instance. Bail is conditional on the petitioner cooperating in the pending criminal proceeding and remaining present on each and every date of trial, failing which the Court below shall pass appropriate orders for cancellation of bail as per law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6337 of 2024

Premchand Kumar ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, S.P.P.

Order No. 05 / Dated 04^th September, 2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned S.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.260 of 2024, registered under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Learned A.C.J.M. Koderma.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner is said to have involved in the commission of committing theft of motorcycle along with co-accused persons and in the present case, a stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved at all in committing the theft of the motorcycle rather petitioner is said to have purchased motorcycle which was found stolen and he is completely innocent. Further, it has been pointed out that this petitioner after being arrested in this case has been remanded in several other cases and as such, five criminal cases are pending against him although he is not involved in all the cases. It is also submitted that petitioner is in jail since 10.05.2024. Charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, the learned S.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a man of criminal history and several stolen

motorcycles are said to have been recovered from his possession at his instance and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail .

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case. 6. In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the Court of Learned A.C.J.M. Koderma, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.260 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and he will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Basant/S. Das

2 B.A. No.6337 of 2024