Dismissed

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2024B.A./872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects bail petitions by three petitioners. The High Court denied bail due to the nature of allegations involving theft, forgery, and cheating, citing the availability of incriminating materials and the petitioners' criminal antecedents as grounds.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; bail prayer rejected considering nature of allegations and criminal antecedents.

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.872 of 2024

¶3

Papu Yadav @ Pappu Yadav

¶4

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

WITH B.A. No.2332 of 2024

¶6

Aman Ali

¶7

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶8

WITH

¶9

B.A. No.3554 of 2024

¶10

Ravi Yadav @ Ravi Kumar Yadav

¶11

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Adv. [In B.A. No.872 of 2024] : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Adv. [In B.A. No.2332 of 2024] : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. [In B.A. No.3554 of 2024] For the State : Mr. Mohua Palit, Adv. [In B.A. No.872 of 2024] : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Adv. [In B.A. No.2332 of 2024] : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. [In B.A. No.3554 of 2024]

¶14

Order No.06/Dated- 18.06.2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioners have been made an accused in connection with Sadar P.S Case No. 453 of 2023 corresponding to CNR No.JHRNO10149832023 registered for the offences under Sections 413/414/467/468/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. – XXVIII, Ranchi.

¶17

As per FIR, it is alleged that during anti-crime checking on 14.10.2023, three accused persons were apprehended in Ranchi. They were found in possession of a stolen R15 motorcycle. Saddam Hussain confessed that he and his accomplices had stolen this motorcycle along with other motorcycles from various locations in Ranchi. Subsequent investigations led to the recovery of stolen motorcycles and cash based on their disclosures.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all as alleged in the FIR. Hence, petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted but the case is still pending in the sessions trial. The petitioners are languishing in Judicial Custody since 15.10.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioners undertake 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. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that petitioner Aman Ali has been apprehended on the spot and on the basis of his confessional statement other co-accused persons have been apprehended. There are criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Hence, petitioners do not deserve bail.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against the petitioners and the materials available on record showing involvement of the petitioners in theft and criminal antecedents of similar offences, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners which stands rejected at this stage.

¶21

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶22

Sachin

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav 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

Tetar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imran Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand