In a bail application for offences under the Indian Penal Code including murder, this high court directed the enlargement of the petitioner on bail despite a technical lapse in the status report, as no overt act was alleged against him.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.
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. 4815 of 2016
Arjun Hembram ……..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ………. Opposite Party
--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P. -----------
07/Dated:03.10.2016
The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 121A, 120B, 302, 323, 452, 448, 341, 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 17 of the CLA Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the FIR but no overt act is alleged against the petitioner. That the allegation of assault is one against Kanhu Munda and the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2015.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
Heard. The status report and explanation called for, is on record. It is stated that the status report was inadvertently sent in B.A. no. 4287 of 2016 instead of B.A. no. 4815 of 2016, and apology has been tendered. In the circumstances, the explanation is accepted.
In the instant case no overt act is alleged against this petitioner. Thus, in the attending facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Distt. & Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in connection with Dhalbhumgarh (Gurabanda) P.S. Case No.19 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No.217 of 2008 (S.T. no. 291 of 2015).
It is made clear that the petitioner shall remain present as and when directed before the trial court till conclusion of the trial failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order for securing the presence of the petitioner in the case.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Tarun/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail given that no overt act is alleged against him.
Arjun Hembram
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
