High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0089

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 386 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1B)a, 26, 35 · Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 — Section 17
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 712 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 · 364 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 Chainpur P.S. Case No.32 of 2020 (G.R. No.602 of 2020) registered under

sections 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1-B)a/26/35 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a member of banned extremist

organization JJMP was involved in demanding extortion amount and set fire to the Hywa vehicle and upon the confessional statement of the petitioner,

fire arms were recovered from the co- accused- Ajay Sao. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and are

general and omnibus in nature and there is no specific allegation as to from whom the petitioner was demanding extortion. It is then submitted that the

informant is a police officer and he is not a victim in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.02.2020 as has been

mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. 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 S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with

Chainpur P.S. Case No.32 of 2020 (G.R. No.602 of 2020) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.