The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail prayer filed by petitioners accused of murder, asphyxiation, and grievous hurt, applying IPC and Arms Act provisions.
Prayer for bail stands rejected.
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 AT RANCHI
B.A. No.367 of 2016
..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari Mr. S.K. Murtty For the State : A. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. S.K. Samanta -----
4/15.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.
Petitioners have been made accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 337, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with S.T. No.368 of 2015, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.204 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2493 of 2015.
The case relates to murder of the brother of the informant and the informant is the eyewitness to the occurrence. There is allegation against the petitioners and the other co-accused persons to have assaulted the deceased. The FIR clearly shows that on some of the accused persons, there is allegation of assaulting the deceased by sharp cutting weapon and on some of the accused persons, there is allegation of assaulting the deceased by hard and blunt substance. So far as these petitioners are concerned, there is allegation against them to have assaulted the deceased by rod and lathi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out from the case diary that there were ante mortem injuries on the deceased, which were caused both by sharp cutting weapons and hard and blunt substances, due to which the deceased had died.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.
(H. C. Mishra, J)
R.Kumar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners accused under Section 302 IPC should be released on bail.
Whether the allegation of assault by rod and lathi supports the grant of bail in murder case.
Vednarayan Yadav
Rameshwar Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
H.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
