High CourtsSingle Bench

Govind Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 JH CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 · Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 47(a), 47(F), 52(D), 55
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8985 Of 2020
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

17 paragraphs · 370 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 Pithoria P.S. Case No.88 of 2020 registered under sections

467/468/471/420/473/474/272/273/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 47(a)/47(F)/52(D)/55 of the Excise Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons was

involved in illegal preparation of spurious liquor and applying forged labels of fake wine over the same. It is further submitted that the allegations

against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner gave the said premises on rent to one Balmukund Kumar Nirala @ Rahul

Sharma and in this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to page nos. 17-20 (annexure-2) of the brief which is

the copy of the rent agreement entered into between the petitioner and the said Balmukund Kumar Nirala @ Rahul Sharma. It is next submitted that

the petitioner has been in custody since 08.08.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the bail application and the petitioner has no concern

with the seized articles. 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 Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Ranchi, in connection

with Pithoria P.S. Case No.88 of 2020 with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case.