In a bail application, the High Court of Jharkhand, allowing the petitioner's renewed prayer, directed his release on bail by furnishing a bond and two sureties, subject to cooperating in the trial.
Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.
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. 6661 of 2018
Prakash Chandra Mahto ….. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Tewari For the State: Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P -----
05/07.12.2018 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 313/304(B) IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2017 passed in B.A. No. 1193/2017. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. It is further submitted that all the witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, thereafter a prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution for framing alternative charge against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC which was allowed by the concerned Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2018. Under the said circumstance, the trial of the petitioner has to start afresh and the entire set of evidence has to be recorded once again which would consume considerable time. It is also submitted that the doctor-PW.9 (Dr. Sanjay Kujur) has clearly deposed in his deposition that the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation by ligature. Thus, it may be construed that it is not a case of throttling. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.05.2016. In view of the said facts, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned A.P.P opposed the petitioner’s prayer for bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No.
158/2016, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 35/2016 (G.R. No. 189/2016), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed in future, unless his physical presence is specifically exempted for a particular date by the order of the Trial Court, failing which the Trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused in a murder case involving dowry death, should be granted regular bail given the change of charge and length of custody.
Prakash Chandra Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
