Ankit Joshi @ Golu vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.

This Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 in B.A. No.4179 of 2024, had granted bail to this petitioner with following conditions:-

(i) One of the bailors should be a close relative of the petitioner, having sufficient landed property in his own name in the State of Jharkhand;

(ii) The petitioner will appear and mark his attendance before the Judge-in-Charge, Deoghar, once in a month till completion of the trial. If he fails to appear in any particular period, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and steps should be taken to arrest the petitioner.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not mark his attendance on one day, because of which, his bail was cancelled. He submits that the petitioner will mark his attendance on each and every date henceforth. He further states that the petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2024, thus, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail application, which the State availed and opposed.

Considering the aforesaid facts and submission advanced at bar, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the present Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner, named above, 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.683 of 2016 corresponding to S.T. Case No.101 of 2017 subject to similar conditions as mentioned earlier in the order dated 10.05.2024 in B.A. No.4179 of 2024.