This court rejected the petitioner's prayer for regular bail in connexion with a case concerning the death of his wife. Despite submissions regarding his absence from the house, the court refused bail, relying on the postmortem report.
Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner rejected.
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 [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]
B.A. No. 5031 of 2020
…....
Om Prakash Paswan …… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P -----
02/Dated: 05/10/2020:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking to comply the previous order with regard to removal of the defect(s).
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Saket Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.85 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.1921 of 2018, for the offence registered under Sections 304B, 34 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that father-in-law (Bhageshwar Manjhi @ Bhageshwar Paswan) and mother-in-law (Rajkali Devi) of the deceased have been granted anticipatory bail passed by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2019 in A.B.A. No.7514 of 2018 and another accused namely, Vijay Kumar Manjhi passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2018 in B.A. No.9149 of 2018. So far the elder brother-inlaw (Bhagwan Manjhi @ Bhagwan) and sister-in-law (Rinki Kumari @ Rinki Devi) are concerned they have moved before this Court in B.A. No.4568 of 2019, but the same was withdrawn as police has not sent-up those two accused persons for trial, as such, they have been released.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner (husband of the deceased) was not present in the house when the deceased was murdered by some persons, as such, petitioner who is in custody since 13.08.2018, may be enlarged on regular bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that deceased has died due to asphyxia caused by ante-mortem strangulation, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and looking into the postmortem report of the deceased and considering that petitioner (husband of
-2-
the deceased) is facing trial in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner facing trial for offences related to the death of his wife.
Whether the petitioner's absence at the scene of the crime warrants bail.
Om Prakash Paswan
The State of Jharkhand
KAILASH PRASAD DEO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
