Ajay Noniya And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the

present.

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No.100 of 2020 registered under Section 414/120(B) of the Indian

Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were transporting stolen mobile handsets in a SUV. It

is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that there is no theft report has been lodged by anybody in respect

of the seized mobile handsets. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted

that the petitioners have been in custody since 23.10.2020 which is evident from para-1 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the

petitioners be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in

connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No.100 of 2020 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case.