Excerpt
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi b.a no.5573 of 2012 ------ sunil kumar . petitioner -versus- the state of jharkhand ..... opposite party ------ coram : the honble mr. justice h.c.mishra ------ for the petitioner : mr.ashok kumar pandey, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ------ 2/ 01.09.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the state. the petitioner has been made accused in deoghar (town) p.s. case no. 260 of 2011 corresponding to g.r no. 717 of 2011, for the offence under sections 461, 379 read with section 120-b of the indian penal code. the case relates to land scam in deoghar, in which, necessary documents regarding to scam were kept in the record room by the deputy commissioner, which were stolen away. in view of the fact that it transpired that rupees twenty lakhs was agreed to be given to the petitioner by the co-accused, who was the main beneficiary, for committing the theft of the records and making them to disappear and the petitioner was seen entering the record room and the burnt papers were recovered from the house of this petitioner, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 13.2.2012 in b.a no. 8373 of 2011. learned counsel for the petitioner has, renewed the prayer for bail. in the facts of this case, i am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, sunil kumar is, hereby, rejected. (h.c.mishra, j.) b.s/
Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.5573 of 2012 ------ Sunil Kumar . Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 01.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 260 of 2011 corresponding to G.R No. 717 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 461, 379 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to land scam in Deoghar, in which, necessary documents regarding to scam were kept in the record room by the Deputy Commissioner, which were stolen away. In view of the fact that it transpired that rupees twenty lakhs was agreed to be given to the petitioner by the Co-accused, who was the main beneficiary, for committing the theft of the records and making them to disappear and the petitioner was seen entering the record room and the burnt papers were recovered from the house of this petitioner, the bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by order dated 13.2.2012 in B.A No. 8373 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, renewed the prayer for bail. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Sunil Kumar is, hereby, rejected. (H.C.Mishra, J.) B.S/