The Court rejected the bail prayer for petitioners accused of murder. The Judge held that since the petitioners were present at the crime scene, unlike a co-accused granted bail, the prosecution case warranted opposing bail at this stage.
Bail prayer of petitioners Samu Sawansi and Banga Munda was rejected at this stage.
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. 3234 of 2018 With
B.A. No. 5523 of 2018
Samu Sawansi ... Petitioner(in B.A. No. 3234/18). Banga Munda ... Petitioner(in B.A. No. 5523/18)
The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.
03/01.10.2018: Heard the counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 150/2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 357/2017 (S.T. No. 74/2018), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti/ District and Additional Session Judge-I, Khunti.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. He further submits that the informant has developed the prosecution case in her re-statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded just three hours after the occurrence. He also submitted that similarly situated coaccused Panda Munda has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 2718 of 2018.
Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case of Panda Munda stands on different footing than that of these petitioners as the Panda was not present at the place of occurrence whereas, these petitioners were present at the place of occurrence, which is apparent from the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and this fact suggests that there is direct allegation attributed to these two petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid submission of A.P.P which out weighs the petitioners submission, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, above named, is rejected at this stage .
However, the petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after examination of the informant during the trial.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Anu/-C.P.-3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners who were present at the place of occurrence should be granted bail when bail was granted to a similarly situated co-accused not present at the scene.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samu Sawansi
Banga Munda
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
