PINTU KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 399/402/364(A)/120(b)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1 -b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation is that this petitioner along with other co -accused had come on the direction of one Bikash Kumar alias Bittu Kumar, who is the Manager of on outsourcing company, for the purpose of realising the ransom money from the businessman, Amrish Bhai Patel; that the said Bikash Kumar alias Bittu has been granted bail in B.A. No. 8838 of 2013; that the confessional statement of the petitioner is not admissible and the petitioner had come from his native place in Bihar in search of a job; he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the police; that he has no criminal antecedent.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months from the date of this order in the Court below.