The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 10.30 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
So far as the court fees and stamps are concerned, counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit the same within four weeks from today. So far as
other defects are concerned, the same are hereby ignored.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, who opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 385, 387, 435, 333, 427 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 17 of C.L.A. Act.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected on 06.12.2018.
It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than three and a half years, i.e. since 03.01.2017 and the trial has not yet concluded.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petitioner namely, Dharmendra Jee @ Munilal
Mahto is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015 [G.R. No. 1152/2015, S.T. No.
88/2019], subject to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailers should be his close relative having sufficient landed property in his own name within the District.
(ii) The petitioner will not change his residential address without permission of the Court and will submit a proof of his residential address at the time of
furnishing bail bonds.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Mandu (W.B.) Police Station, once in a month and shall mark his attendance till
completion of the trial. If he fails to appear in any particular period, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the Officer-in-charge would be at liberty to
arrest the petitioner.
With the aforesaid conditions, this application stands allowed.
