High CourtsSingle Bench

Binod Bhuiyan @ Kattapa vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 11 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0118

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 384, 386, 427, 435 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1B)a, 26, 35 · Explosive Substances Act, 1883 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 937 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 367 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.12 of 2019 (G.R. No.266 of 2019) registered under

sections 384/386/427/435/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1-B)a/26/35 of Arms Act and under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in demanding extortion from

the employees of GAIL Company. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated

in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since

29.06.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the co-accused person has already been

admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2019 and 01.07.2019, passed in B.A. Nos. 5492 of 2019 and 5368 of 2019

and also by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2020 in B.A. No.9183 of 2020. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the

trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to

enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Bagodar

P.S. Case No.12 of 2019 (G.R. No.266 of 2019) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.