KULDIP KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and 27 off the Arms Act.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and during investigation his name came in the confessional statement of co-accused Shivnath Oraon, who stated in his concessional statement that he along with this petitioner and two others had gone for demanding Rangdari and when the same was not given, firing was made in order to create terror. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the statement of coaccused, there is no other evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 25th June,2010. It is also submitted that except one more case, which also transpires from the same confessional statement of Shivnath Oraon that he accompanied him also on 17.1.2010 and demanded Rangdari in village Dibauli from Kali Singh, in which he has already on bail, there is no other case against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer for bail and submits that as per confessional statement the petitioner is involved in two cases and does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances, since the petitioner has remained in custody on the confessional statement of co-accused, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S.Case No.22/2010, G.R. No.55/2010, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall appear physically once in every month on the date fixed in the trial.