Jharkhand High CourtUmar Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 October, 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  B. A.  No. 9193 of 2013
                              ­­­

           Umar Ansari                                 ...      ...       Petitioner
                                     Versus
           State of Jharkhand                          ...      ...       Opposite Party
                            ­­­
           CORAM      : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                             ­­­        
          For the Petitioner     : Mrs. Lina Shakti , Advocate
          For the Opp. Party     : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P. P
                      ­­­
2/01.10.2013Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 
           the documents on record.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring 
           to page no. 9 of the Paper­book, has submitted that the petitioner 
           has been made an accused in Mandu (W.B.) P. S. Case No. 270 of 
           2013 corresponding to G.  R.  No. 2342 of 2013 registered underSections 395/412of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 
           petitioner was got apprehended at the place of occurrence when 
           other   co­accused   persons   were   arrested.     No   recovery   has   been 
           affected from the possession of the petitioner and the name of the 
           petitioner   transpired   only   in   the   confessional   statement   of
           co­accused.She  has   further  submitted  that  even   the   foundational  facts 
           constituting an offence underSection 395of the I.P.C. has not been 
           mentioned in the first information report and even from the alleged 
           confessional statement of co­accused, it would appear that no case 
           for an offence underSection 395of the I.P.C. is made out.  She has 
           further   submitted   that   the   petitioner   has   no   previous   criminal 
           history   and   no   Test   Identification   Parade   was   conducted   in   the 
           matter   so   as   to   establish   the   complicity   of   the   petitioner   in   the 
           crime.   She has further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial 
           custody   since   19.08.2013,   and   therefore,   the   petitioner   deserves 
           grant of bail.Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State   has   opposed   the 
                  prayer for bail.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the 
                  submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   the 
                  petitioner   above   named,   is  directed   to   be   released   on   bail   on 
                  furnishing  bail   bond   of   Rs.   10,000/­(Rupees  ten   thousand)   each 
                  with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned 
                  Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Hazaribagh   in   connection 
                  with Mandu (W.B.) P. S. Case No. 270 of 2013 corresponding to 
                  G.R. No. 2342 of 2013.Needless   to   say   that,   in   addition   to   the   conditions   as 
                  prescribed underSection 437Cr .P. C., the learned trial court would 
                  impose other conditions, if required.(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 3