Allowed

Sandeep Sao Alias Sandeep Kumar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2018B.A./5996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed to petitioner accused of murder under IPC. Court found evidence insufficient for deprivation of liberty, granting bail with bond and sureties and re-arrest conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each to District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, subject to re-arrest conditions.

Sandeep Sao Alias Sandeep Kumar Sao Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 5996 of 2018

¶3

Sandeep Sao @ Sandeep Kumar Sao …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party(s) ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶5

-----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate FOR THE STATE : A.P.P. FOR THE INFORAMNT : Ms. Sadhna Kumar, Advocate ------

¶6

04/17.12.2018

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶8

The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 365/34/302/201 of the IPC.

¶9

Suspicion was raised that petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submits that dead body was recovered on the confessional statement of Sabir Ansari, who has been granted bail. He confessed his guilt and stated that it is this petitioner, who has committed murder of the deceased.

¶11

Counsel for the informant assisted by the Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner happens to be the nephew of the deceased and was having bad eye on the wife of the deceased as result of which he was murdered. He submits that during investigation it has come that on several occasions i.e on 30.8.2017 and 31.8.2017 petitioner has given calls to the deceased and thereafter deceased went missing. Learned APP submits that on 30.8.2017 deceased was seen in company of this petitioner. They went to the house of Ashok Modi and Mukesh Modi where they dined together. Thereafter deceased and petitioner went to their house on 30.8.2017.

¶12

After hearing the parties, I find that only evidence against the petitioner is that there was conversation between the petitioner and the deceased over phone and they were last seen with others.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid fact which has been recorded during investigation, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner

¶14

-2-

¶15

above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in connection with Domchanch Police Station Case No. 63 of 2017 (G.R. No. 948 of 2017), corresponding to S.T. No. 23 of 2018, subject to the condition that petitioner will appear before the trial court on each and every date during trial failing which his bail bond stand cancelled and the trial court will take appropriate steps for his re-arrest.

¶16

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶17

anjali/ C.P 3

Sandeep Sao Alias Sandeep Kumar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sao Alias Sandeep Kumar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gautam Thapa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand