Sujal Sameer Singh @ Tutu Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

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 Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020 registered under sections 364A/34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons enticed the

nephew of the informant who is the victim of the case namely Sanjiv Singh to go to the market on the pretext of buying clothes but thereafter they

abducted him and took him towards Japla and the mobile phone of the victim was switched off and the petitioner and the co-accused-Chotu Singh

asked the informant over the phone that the victim will not be released and will be killed unless the vehicle is retuned to them. It is further submitted

that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is then submitted

that on the confessional statement of the petitioner one Hero Passion motorcycle has been recovered. It is next submitted that the petitioner has

purchased one old Alto car from Hind Motors and though the sale letter was prepared but the ownership has not been transferred because of

lockdown and the victim had come to co- accused- Chotu Singh and narrated about intestinal ailment of his mother and asked for the Alto car to go to

the doctor but upon the said Chotu Singh expressing his inability to handover the alleged car, the victim of this case dragged the co-accused at the gun

point inside the car and drove away the same towards some distance and then pushed out the co-accused- Chotu Singh from the car and asked for

Rs.50,000/- to return the said car. It is then submitted that the said Chotu Singh reported the matter to Husainabad Police Station but the Husainabad

Police Station refused to accept the FIR, then the co- accused approached Haidarnagar police station but they also denied to accept the FIR

consequent upon which the co-accused made online complaint to the S.P., Palamau vide complaint No.2020/00187 dated 05.03.2020 hence, this false

case has been foisted by the informant to harass the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.06.2020 as

mentioned in the impugned order. 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. 1st Class, Palamau, in connection with

Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.91 of 2020 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.