Allowed

Bapi Koyal v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2018B.A./9059/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding murder and explosive substance charges, the High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner. The court noted the suspect had been in custody for over five and a half years, the investigation officer failed to appear for cross-examination, and multiple witnesses had turned hostile. Bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties; appearance on all future dates in trial court.

Bapi Koyal Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9059 of 2017

¶2

Bapi Koyal ….........Petitioner

¶3

Vrs.

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….......... Opposite Parties

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay For the Opposite Party :

¶6

05/05.01.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Petitioner seeks grant of bail in connection with Adityapur(RIT) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 342 of 2012(S.T. No. 115 of 2013) for the offences registered under Section 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, which is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella.

¶8

Earlier the bail application of petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2012 passed in B.A. No. 8476 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 28.6.2012 for more than 5 years 6 months now. He submits that out of 8 prosecution witnesses shown in column no. 13 of the charge-sheet, 7 witnesses have already been examined and 6 of them including the informant P.W.2 have turned hostile. The Investigating Officer has not turned up for examination despite repeated indulgence and last chance given to him by the learned Trial Court. Petitioner in all likelihood believes that in the aforesaid state of failure of prosecution, he would be acquitted of the charges. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail as he has remained in custody for more than 5 years by now.

¶9

A report was called for from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella about the status of Sessions Trial Case No 115 of 2013. The report at Flag 'S' dated 21.12.2017 shows that out of 8 prosecution witnesses, 7 were examined including the Medical Officer except the Investigating Officer. Except the Medical Officer, P.W.7, all other witnesses including the informant-wife (P.W.2) have turned hostile. Despite time granted to Additional Public Prosecutor to produce the remaining chargesheeted witness, the Investigating Officer namely Rajesh Prakash Sinha has not turned up for examination, though last indulgence was granted for his production on 15.12.2017.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even on the next date

¶11

i.e., 22.12.2017, Investigating Officer has not turned up for his examination.

¶12

-2-

¶13

Petitioner would however appear before the learned Trial Court on all the dates till the conclusion of the trial, if released on bail.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Adityapur(RIT) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 342 of 2012(S.T. No. 115 of 2013). Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed in the case till the trial is concluded.

¶15

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶16

A.Mohanty

Bapi Koyal v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapi Koyal 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

Ms Hindustan Constructions through Its Proprietor Nakimuddin Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Farooque Khan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

The Chairman S P C a Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mpd Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signatory Debasis Bhattacharjee Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman And Anr.

M/S. Sone Vanaspati Limited Vs Official Liquidator

Dr R K Rana Alias Rabindra Kumar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI