High CourtsSingle Bench

Marianush Minz vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 JH CK 0121

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaya Roy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1), 26, 35 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 412, 414
CASE NUMBER
B.A. No. 2292 of 2011
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

5 paragraphs · 350 words

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

2.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 414/412 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the Petitioner was twice rejected on one of the main ground that he is involved in seventeen criminal cases. It is contended that the present Petitioner has been acquitted in seven cases and in four cases he has been granted bail. He has further contended that actually he has not been remanded yet in other cases. It is also submitted that another co-accused namely Bihari Oraon who is standing on similar footing with the present Petitioner having involved in ten criminal cases, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 1194 of 2011 vide order dated 3rd March, 2011. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has been remanded in this case in November, 2008 i.e. he is in custody in this case for more than two years.

4.

Learned Counsel for the State Mr. H.K. Shikarwar has opposed the prayer for bail but not disputed the contentions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

5.

Considering the submissions made by both the parties and considering the period of custody of the Petitioner, the Petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2009 arising out of Basia P.S. Case No. 49 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2008 subject to the conditions that both the bailors of the Petitioner would be his near relatives and he will remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date fixed for trial. A single default without reasonable cause would render his bail order liable to be vacated at the instance of the Trial Judge.