AMIT SANATN PAL @ AMIT PAL @ AMITSANTAN PAL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.A(DB)/392/2025 · 2025-06-09
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8738 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8738 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:14810-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 392 of 2025
Amit Sanatn Pal @ Amit Pal @ Amit Santan Pal, son of Sanatn Pal @ Santan Pal, resident of Shaltore, Rajakpara, PO+PS: Neturla, District: Purulia, West Bengal
... Appellant
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Respondent
--- CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
--- 03/09.06.2025
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in MCA No.2684 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in connection with ST Case No. 507 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that the nine month old child of the informant was stolen by some unnamed accused persons. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the child was subsequently recovered from the possession of Suhana Begum who has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1006 of 2024. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since
19.05.2024. The learned counsel adds that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned PP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant was instrumental in stealing the baby and in fact it was Nudrat Jahan who had purchased the baby from one Radha and who had subsequently handed it over to Suhana Begum from whom the baby was recovered. The learned PP has submitted that the CCTV footage clearly reveals about the involvement of the appellant in stealing the baby. Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that the child was recovered from the possession of Suhana Begam who has already been granted bail by this Court as noted above, we while setting aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in MCA
No.2684 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in connection with ST Case No. 507 of 2024 direct the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi in ST Case No. 507 of 2024. This appeal is allowed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
S.B.
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
-2-