The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi considered the petitioner's bail application. Despite the defence citing late FIR and lack of Section 307 repetition, the Court, considering the grievous injury, rejected bail pending the conclusion of trial in the trial court.
Bail rejected; liberty to renew prayer if trial concludes after December 2016.
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.903 of 2016
---- Pintu Dangi …Petitioner. Versus State of Jharkhand …Opp.Party. --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Petitioner : M/s. A.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate. For the State : APP. --------- 07/08.08.2016 The petitioner is an accused for the offence registered under Sections 341,323,307,506,504/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that F.I.R has been lodged after 15 days of the occurrence. That ingredients for the offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted against the petitioner as there is no repetition of blow. It is submitted that the victim sustained only one injury and the occurrence took place on account of the dispute between the uncle(informant) and nephew(petitioner).
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that the victim was admitted at RIMS in the Neuro Surgery Department, in an unconscious state hence, delay in lodging the FIR has been well explained. It is submitted that it would be evident that injury was found to be grievous in nature and 'v' shape stitched wound was found over right parietal region of head and as per CT Scan report there was epidural (bleed) in left temporal region and right parietal region and the parietal bones were found to be fractured.
Heard. Considering the nature of allegation I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the trial is not concluded by December, 2016 the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Biswas.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.
Irrelevance of late FIR charging ingredients of Section 307 IPC.
Whether injury in the right parietal region was grievous in nature.
Pintu Dangi
State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
