The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a bail application by an accused in a murder case. The court held that mere length of custody is not a ground for bail and refused to grant it based on the facts.
Bail application dismissed. Petitioner remains in judicial custody.
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. 3766 of 2017
Narsingh Mahto, son of Sri Ramdhani Mahto, Resident of village Skhiya PO-Oriya, PS-Muffasil (Sadar), DistrictHazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ….... Opposite Party
-----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP
07/11.09.2017 Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
Petitioner has been made an accused in Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.1278 of 2015 which was registered for the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C.
Contending that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case solely rests on circumstantial evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 07.11.2015, deserves grant of bail in this case.
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned APP opposing the prayer for grant of bail submits that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report and after collecting sufficient materials, a charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioner is facing charge of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C
On the question of custody of the petitioner, suffice would be to indicate that period of custody alone is not a ground on which an accused may be released on bail [refer, “Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vrs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another” reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
sudhir
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves grant of bail given the lack of eye-witness and reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the period of custody alone is a ground to release an accused on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vrs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and AnotherReferred¶11
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vrs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another (2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narsingh Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Shree Chandrashekar
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
