Held that bail applications of two petitioners, last seen with a deceased who fell after consuming liquor, are allowed. The court noted no motive, weak allegations limited to last seen, and delay in recording the 164 statement.
Directed the court below to enlarge petitioners on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 4862 of 2014
2.Bachan Lohra ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (B.A. No. 4862/2014) Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal (B.A. No. 5274/2014) For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amresh Kumar, A.P.P. (In both cases)
3/09.09.2014
Bail application (B.A. No. 4862 of 2014) filed by petitioner Raju Lohra and bail application (B.A. No. 5274 of 2014) are heard together, as they arose from the same first information report.
Heard Sri P.S. Dayal and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amresh Kumar, learned Additional PP for the State.
Petitioners are not named in the first information report. However, it appears that they have been named by two persons namely Ram Bilash Lohra and Munni Devi in their statements under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. that petitioners took away the deceased from the place, where he fell after consuming liquor. It is worth mentioning that Ram Bilash Lohra had further stated that he had informed the informant that deceased fell after consuming liquor. But from perusal of F.I.R. it appears that at that time he had not disclosed that these petitioners took away the deceased from the place of falling. 164 statement was recorded after seven days of the occurrence. Even if that statement is taken to be true, then also I find that only allegation against the petitioners are that they were last seen with the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners had any motive to commit the present crime.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow these applications and direct the court below to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Deepak Barnwal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 43 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 968 of 2014.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Binit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to petitioners who are not named in the FIR but appear in a subsequent Section 164 statement as last seen with the deceased.
Whether the alleged motive for the crime is supported by the materials on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bachan Lohra / Raju Lohra
The State of Jharkhand
PRASHANT KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
