Two bail applications by accused in a murder case were dismissed. The Court rejected the claim of an accidental death due to overwhelming evidence of assault from eyewitnesses and confessions, concluding the petitioners were instrumental in the victim's death.
Both bail applications were 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
B. A. No. 7213 of 2020 With
B. A. No. 5515 of 2020 ---
Maheshwar Yadav … … Petitioner
(in B. A. No. 7213 of 2020)
Surendra Yadav … … Petitioner (in B. A. No. 5515 of 2020)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. : Mr. B. N. Ojha, A.P.P.
3/03.11.2020 Heard the parties.
Since both these applications arise out of a common FIR, the same are being disposed by this common order.
Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
The petitioners are accused in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 25 of 2020.
It has been alleged that the husband of the informant was having a timber business and the accused persons had demanded extortion money from him. While her husband had gone to sale wood, he was assaulted by the petitioners with lathi and danda. It has also been alleged that he was admitted to hospital where he died in course of treatment.
Learned senior counsel has referred to paragraph 29 of the case diary and has stated that initially FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased in which it was specifically stated that he had died of a road accident. He has also referred to paragraph 30 of the case diary which contains the inquest report and also reveals the cause of death as motorcycle accident. It has been stated that after the death had occurred, there was due deliberation made by the informant party and after a few days, a second FIR was instituted casting insinuations upon the petitioners. Learned senior counsel submits that admittedly the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.
-2-
Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned P.P. has opposed the bail application and has referred to various paragraphs of the case diary.
On a perusal of the case diary, paragraph 13 appears to contain the statement of one Shivbrat Kumar Singh, who claims himself to be an eyewitness and who has stated that he and others including the deceased were accosted by the petitioner and others and although, he had managed to flee away, but had seen the deceased being assaulted with lathi and danda. This witness has stated that the deceased was subsequently taken to hospital. Similar statement has been given by Tileshwar Singh and Vakil Singh recorded at paragraph 14 & 15 of the case diary. The petitioner in B. A. No. 7213 of 2020 had confessed which is recorded at paragraph 24 of the case diary and the confessional statement of the petitioner in B. A. No. 5515 of 2020 finds place at paragraph 25 of the case diary.
Though, the mother of the deceased had reported about the accident suffered by her son which resulted in his death and which has also been recorded in the inquest report but in the subsequent statement of witnesses who appears to be eye-witnesses, they have stated about the active participation of the petitioners in committing assault upon the deceased which resulted in his death.
Therefore in view of such overwhelming circumstances which suggest that it was the petitioners who were instrumental in committing the murder of the deceased, I am not inclined to allow these applications.
Accordingly, both these applications are hereby rejected.
However, the trial may be expedited once the functioning of normal court work resumes.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail applications by accused in murder case should be allowed despite withdrawals of initial accidental death theory.
Whether corroborative evidence of eye-witnesses shifts circumstances so bail should be denied.
Whether trial must be expedited upon resumption of normal court functioning.
Maheshwar Yadav
Surendra Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court