Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Ganjhu Alias Sushil Bhuinya ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2017
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No.9847 of 2016
-----
Sushil Ganjhu @
Sushil Bhuinya @ Ramdeo Ganjhu. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. .......... Opposite Party.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendera Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------
03/18.01.2017: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 307, 353, 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosives Substance Act; and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
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 in the first information report, which has been lodged against 41 named and 300 unknown persons with an allegation that the said accused persons attacked Chainpur Police Station and set the block office on fire. It will appear from the self statement of the informant that one Sushil has been implicated as accused without any parentage at Sl. No.5 in the first information report. The police has not collected any admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence except the fact that during the alleged occurrence some witnesses claimed to have overheard the names of the members of prohibited extremist group, who were calling each other by name. The name of the petitioner was also claimed to be overheard by some of the police officials. Other co-accused, namely, Indrajeet Yadav @ Indrajeet @ Kapil Yadav and Samu Singh @ Samo Singh have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 6.4.2015 and 26.4.2016 in B.A. No.7445 of 2014 and B.A. No.3501 of 2016, respectively. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23 rd April, 2015.
Learned APP opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.
-2-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Gumla, in connection with S.T. No.165 of 2016, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.7 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.312 of 2013.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/