Dismissed

Karan Karmali Alias Bambu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Aug 2019B.A./6710/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application by an accused husband charged under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act for murder, the High Court rejected the prayer for regular bail, holding that police had collected sufficient material connecting him to the offence despite the non-filing of charge sheets against co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail under Sections 302 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was rejected; petitioner remains in custody.

Karan Karmali Alias Bambu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.6710 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Karan Karmali @ Bambu .......... Petitioner. -VersusThe State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

¶4

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, A.P.P. ----- Order No.04 Date: 27.08.2019

¶5

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has committed no offence as alleged. The petitioner is husband of the deceased. Though the first information report was lodged against the petitioner, his mother and brother, yet after investigation, the case was not found true so far as other co-accused persons are concerned. The charge sheet has been submitted only against the petitioner. Thereafter, charge has also been framed. Except the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner, the police has not collected any cogent material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. As such, the petitioner who is in judicial custody since 11^th July, 2018 may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶7

Learned APP while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased is directly involved in commission of the alleged offence. The postmortem report of the deceased shows that she died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The police has collected sufficient material

¶8

-2-

¶9

against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.195 of 2019, arising out of Silli (Muri) P.S. Case No.84 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.3933 of 2018.

¶11

Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶12

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶13

Sanjay/

Karan Karmali Alias Bambu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Karmali Alias Bambu 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

Avinash Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotu Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naima Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwakarma Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tuntun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand