Bipin Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 387, 435 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

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 in the first information report. It is further submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Manesh Ganjhu @ Manesh Pahan and Mukesh Ganjhu, who were said to have been identified, have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 19 th August, 2015 and 5th September, 2016 in B.A. No.5510 of 2015 and B.A. No.6731 of 2016, respectively. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 26th September, 2015 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

Learned APP opposes the petitioner''s prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.26 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.143 of 2015, with a condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the trial and shall physically appear before the court below as and when required failing which learned court below shall be at liberty to take appropriate step in accordance with law.