Lallu Parahaiya vs The State of Jharkhand

Jaya Roy, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence registered under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code has been added.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner was earlier rejected twice by this Court. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2008 i.e. more than three and half years It is also submitted that though the F.I.R has been lodged against unknown persons but till date Petitioner was not put on T.I. parade.

It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the other co-accused whose trial was separated from the Petitioner, have already been acquitted in this case, as mentioned in paragraph No. 7 of this bail application.

Learned Counsel for the State opposed but not disputed the aforesaid contentions made by the counsel for the Petitioner.

Considering all these aspects, Petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in connection with Manika P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 169A of 2004 (S.T. No. 46 of 2009), subject to the condition that Petitioner will remain physically present before the trial Court on each and every date of the trial till the conclusion of the trial and one of the bailors will be his close relative and another will be of local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the trial court.