ROHIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 25(1-A)/26/35 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. Though the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R., however his name has surfaced on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused Paras Ram. There is no recovery of incriminating weapon from the possession of the petitioner. Earlier, he was not aware of his implication in the present case. The charge against the petitioner has been framed on 8/2/2021. Moreover, co-accused Paras Ram has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dtd. 10/4/2017 passed in B.A. No. 518 of 2017. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 25/3/2020 in connection with the present case and at least considering the length of his judicial custody, he may be given the privilege of regular bail. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000.00(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial No. 332 of 2019, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the learned Trial Court, failing which the said court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.