Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Deepak Verma @ Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 December, 2020

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              B.A. No. 8948 of 2020
                       ------

Deepak Verma @ Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma @ Deepak Vishwakarma ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P.

------

Order No.02 Dated- 01.12.2020 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.54 of 2019 registered under sections 272/273/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, under section 47(a) of the Excise Act, under section 63/64/65 of the Copy Right Act and under section 102/103/104 of the Trade Mark Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the Swift Car which was seized by police for transporting spurious liquor. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.08.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.54 of 2019 with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/