The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Ashok Tiwary, an accused charged with murder. The court noted the petitioner's extra-judicial confession and his relationship with the deceased as grounds for denying bail.
Prayer for bail is hereby 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. 440 of 2018
Ashok Tiwary
…. …. Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
03/13.03.2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC.
Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. It is alleged that petitioner has made extra judicial confession before Mukhiya. In the said confessional statement the petitioner has accepted his guilt and stated that he has pressed the neck of the deceased and committed murder. The post-mortem report also suggests that death is due to asphyxia resulting from pressure over neck.
Since petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has made extra judicial confession, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Ashok Tiwary, in connection with Parsudih P. S. Case No. 126 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1969 of 2017 is hereby rejected.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused who is the husband of the deceased and has made an extra-judicial confession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Tiwary
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
