Dismissed

Manoj Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2020B.A./1502/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in an application for bail/suspended sentence dismisses the prayer regarding the petitioners application. The petitioner is charged with assault leading to death in Pathargama P.S. Case No. 139 of 2019. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and multiple injuries. The court finds strong suspicion and rejects the application refusing to allow it while expediting the trial a

What did the court decide?

The application is rejected. The trial is to be expedited once the situation normalizes.

Manoj Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B. A. No. 1502 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Manoj Marandi … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

3/14.09.2020 Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 139 of 2019.

¶12

It has been alleged that the son-in-law of the informant had called his daughter and thereafter she did not return and on the next morning, her daughter was found hanging from a tree. The petitioner appears to be the husband of the deceased.

¶13

In course of investigation, the witnesses have stated about the assault committed by the petitioner upon the deceased due to which the informant had brought her back to his house. They have also stated about the petitioner visiting the village some times and he also used to talk with one Sangita. The post-mortem report which finds place at paragraph 27 of the case diary reveals the cause of death as Asphyxia due to strangulation and in fact multiple injuries were also found on the person of the deceased.

¶14

The petitioner as stated above is the husband of the deceased and in view of the strong suspicion, which emanates from what has been stated above, I am not inclined to allow this application and the same is hereby rejected.

¶15

Let the trial be expedited, once the situation normalizes.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Manoj Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Marandi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Dwivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Faij Ashraf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Verma Alias Vikash Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panda Munda Alias Ravi Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kerwa Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand