Ajit Kumar Neelam vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. His name has come in this case merely on the basis of suspicion and the police has not collected any evidence as against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence except his confessional statement as well as the confessional statement of the co-accused persons which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Similarly situated co- accused namely Sarik Ansari @ Md.Sarik @ Md. Samir who was also identified in the Test Identification Parade has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2016 in B.A. No.4661 of 2016. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2016, and he is ready to fully co-operate in the trial.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2016 that is more than two and a half years, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. No.441 of 2014 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.178 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.1971 of 2014, subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the court, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law.