Rajkumar Nath Sahdeo @ Balu Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties.

Hearing of this appeal has taken place through video conference in which counsel for the appellant, counsel for the State as well as the Court were well-connected.

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant for grant of his anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though his name has appeared in the FIR but in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no reflection of his name. FIR was written by someone else and not at all by the victim. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the case and, hence, there is no basis for charge-sheet. Learned counsel has further submitted that appellant is willing to abide by the usual conditions as imposed by this Court and any other suitable conditions. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, he needs to be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that appellant is named accused in the FIR and the allegations are serious in nature, moreover, witnesses have supported the case. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having gone through the case records and after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant and accordingly, appellant, namely, Rajkumar Nath Sahdeo @ Balu Singh is directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks from today and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-( Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned AJC-XII-cum-Spl. Judge SC/ST (POA) Act at Ranchi in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 124 of 2017 (S.C./S.T. Case No.273 of 2017) subject to the condition that appellant shall deposit Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in Chief Minister Relief Fund, Jharkhand.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.