Sudhir Bhokta @ Sudhir Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure s. 395
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. S.K. Deo. Advocate : Mr. S.K. Dubey, A.P.P. 03/23.03.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. The bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicants with a prayer to release on bail in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No.134/2021 under section 395 of CPC pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that FIR of this case was lodged by the informant victim herself with these allegations that two persons had come him to hire the auto of the informant; accordingly he took them and three unknown came by the motorcycle from behind and overtook his auto and all criminally intimidated and beaten to the informant and on the point of knife keyboard mobile of JIO company and purse was looted. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that FIR was lodged against five unknown persons. The name of the applicants surfaced during investigation and the mobile which is alleged to be recovered from the possession of the applicants has been planted. No TIP was conducted to identify the complicity of the applicants in commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the looted mobile was recovered from the possession of applicant no.1 and no alleged property was recovered from the applicant no.2. The applicants have been languishing in jail since 16.09.2021 having no criminal antecedents. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. In view of the submissions made and the material on record, the bail application of the applicants are allowed. Let the applicants be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned in the aforesaid case.
(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.