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
35 paragraphs · 681 wordsLearned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking to comply the previous order with regard to removal of the defect(s). Heard, learned
counsel, Mr. Prakash Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.171 of
2019, for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 385, 435 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR nor he has any connection with the alleged offence rather it is alleged
that from mobile no.9939781823 which stands in the name of Sanjeet Jee by which ransom was demanded from the informant on his mobile
No.9973284553, but the petitioner has been made an accused on the allegation that petitioner along with other co-accused person went to the site and
demanded ransom which was not paid then demanded diesel which was also not given and thereafter they put the Hywa ablaze.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has never been put on TIP rather on the basis of a manufactured case by the
police, petitioner has been shown as accused in six criminal cases and has been taken into custody on 29.12.2019, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this petitioner has long list of criminal cases as against him and if
he is released on bail then there is chance that he will abscond as other cases are of similar nature but fairly submitted that petitioner has not been put
on TIP, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that
petitioner is not named in the FIR nor he has been put on TIP, this Court is inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner (Rohit Kumar
Singh), 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.171 of 2019 on the
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case namely, Bishnu Singh, S/o Late Nanhu Singh, R/o Village- Kot Khas, P.O. &
P.S.- Lesliganj, District- Palamau (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.3532 7627 7160 before this Court in the bail
application.
Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing No. 3532 7627 7160 of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify
the authenticity of the bailor.
(ii) Another bailor shall be mother/father/brother/sister/son.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Lesliganj Police Station on 1st Monday of each English calendar month at 10.30 a.m. and
petitioner shall put his signature on the register maintained by the Officer-in-Charge for the said purpose, as the petitioner has long list of criminal
antecedent.
(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial.
(v) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check- up.
(vi) The Civil Surgeon, Palamau is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if require, petitioner shall be taken for
quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(vii) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through
Pandemic of Covid-19.
It is made clear that on any further material collected by the investigating officer against the petitioner the State is at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of bail.
