Anup Das vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

This is an application for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner for the offence u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and subsequently Petitioner was arrested in the case. It is further submitted that he is an accused in several cases of like nature and nothing has been recovered from his possession nor anything was recovered at his instance and since the Petitioner has remained in custody four about seven months, he may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but admits that there is no recovery from the Petitioner and as per the criminal antecedent report sent from the police station there are eight cases pending against him in which 3/4 cases are of 395/392 of the Indian Penal Code and hence he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstance of the case since there is no recovery at his instance and he has remained in custody for about seven months and he has got no criminal antecedent, the Petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/ (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 76 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 292 of 2007 subject to the conditions that bailors must be local residents having property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the Petitioner will appear before the trial court once in every month on the date fixed for trial otherwise his bail bond will be cancelled.