Allowed

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/1466/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court observed that no material witness identified the appellant and he had been in custody since 2016, directing his release on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the appellant on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1296 of 2016

¶3

Ramjeet @ Ramjeet Mehta … ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … ... Respondents ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶6

15/ 10.04.2018 Heard the parties.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed in SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code but thereafter on application of Investigating Officer under Section 379, 376(D), 302, 201, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added in the FIR and after commitment charge has been framed under Section 364/149, 376 (D), 379/149, 302/149, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj rejected his prayer for bail.

¶8

After the prayer for bail of the above named appellant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj, a co-ordinate Bench of this court also rejected the prayer for bail in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1150 of 2016. The fresh ground for the prayer for bail is that in the meanwhile 12 out of 13 witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet have been examined and no witness except the PW-12- I.O. of the case has identified the appellant or deposed anything to implicate him in this case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the material witnesses examined in the case have not mentioned anything against the appellant and even not identified him in the court though he was present at time of their examination in the court. Drawing attention of this Court towards pages 4 to 34 of the supplementary affidavit dated

¶10

04.04.2018, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 12 out of 13 witnesses have been examined and no material witness has identified the appellant or deposed anything to implicate him in this case. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 3.4.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be admitted to bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶11

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail. Accordingly the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed in SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2016, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 (G.R. No.508 of 2016).

¶12

In the result this appeal stands allowed.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶14

AKT

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Panchanan Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Bholu Alias Vivek Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhtar Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramjeet Alias Ramjeet Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand and Anr.

State of Jharkhand And Ors. Vs Ravi Prakash Singh

Basant Kumari Devi And Anr. Vs State of Bihar Now Jharkhand