Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

c-101, vasundhara apartments, dwarka, new delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. regarding property at l-4, connaught place, new delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. since the defendant is willing to give half of the rental income from the aforesaid house to the plaintiff after deducting the expenditure incurred on its upkeep and maintenance, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts with respect to the rental income earned by the defendant from h.no.670, ajit singh nagar mohali phase-ii, punjab. .....implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. it is also submitted that no eyewitness has named this petitioner. learned counsel accordingly prayed for bail. learned app though opposed the prayer for bail, but has very fairly conceded that the petitioner has been named by witness stating that he learnt that the offence was committed by the petitioner, but the source of information has not been disclosed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, i am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. accordingly, the petitioner sudhir kumar @ tappu is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, ranchi, in connection with namkum p.s. case no.163 of 2009, corresponding to g.r. no.4338 of 2009. (h. c. mishra, j)r.kumar

Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6870 of 2011 Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Yogesh Modi A. P.P. ..... Petitioner

For the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011

----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302/34 of

Prosecution. the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Namkum P.S. Case no.163 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.4338 of 2009. The case relates to double murder and the informant was injured in this case. The case has been instituted against unknown. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. It is also submitted that no eyewitness has named this petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for bail. Learned APP though opposed the prayer for bail, but has very fairly conceded that the petitioner has been named by witness stating that he learnt that the offence was committed by the petitioner, but the source of information has not been disclosed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Namkum P.S. Case no.163 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.4338 of 2009. (H. C. Mishra, J)

R.Kumar