High CourtsSingle Bench

Rupesh Kumar Yadav @ Rupesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 8 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 JH CK 0105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10631 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

15 paragraphs · 336 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 Kunda P.S. Case No.220 of 2019 (G.R. No.566 of 2020) registered under

sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has looted the shop of the informant after

threatening him on the point of fire arm and looted cash and two cell phones with two sim cards and broke the CCTV camera installed in the said

shop. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though the petitioner is not named in the FIR yet without holding

any T.I. Parade, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.05.2020 as

has been mentioned in paragraph no. 9 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 J.M., Deoghar, in connection with Kunda P.S. Case

No.220 of 2019 (G.R. No.566 of 2020) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.