BABULAL MAHTO @ LALBABU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused in a case registered u/s 364A / 120B of the I.P.C.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and subsequently, during investigation his name came in the confessional statement of co- accused, Dhiraj Jalan and Surendra Ram and at para 244 of the case diary he was named by one Raj Kumar Oraon,who had seen him going to he house of co- accused Ranjit Kachchap, except that there is no evidence against the petitioner. Petitioner was never put on T.I.P. nor he was identified by the informant or by the victim, Raunak Kumar. Hence, in view of the fact that he voluntarily surrendered in the court on 19.7.2010, he may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that one witness, Raj Kumar Oraon has named this accused in the case diary. In the facts & circumstances of the case , since petitioner was never put on T.I.P nor he was identified by the informant or victim and he has remained in custody for some time, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000(Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ranchi in connection with Lapung P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 947 of 2010 subject to the condition that bailors must be local having property within the jurisdiction of the court. Further, he will remain physically present in the court below on each and every date fixed in the case, otherwise his bail bond will be cancelled.