Allowed

Sonu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC29 Nov 2021B.A./4056/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the bail application of the accused in a murder case, observing that the specific role of opening fire was assigned solely to the accused by the witness, and no other witness corroborated this version or recovered empty cartridges linking him to the crime.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Sonu Kumar, be released on bail by furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Sonu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

B.A. No. 4056 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Sonu Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------

¶7

05/29.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶8

This bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sonu Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Macluskiganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2020, District-Ranchi registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R of this case was lodged against four persons including the applicant-Sonu Kumar with regard to commit murder of son of the informant-Vishal Kumar by opening fire with the gun. It is further submitted that the role of opening fire has been assigned to the applicant but no empty cartridges was recovered during investigation by the Investigation Officer, after concluding the investigation charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the there is no evidence against the applicant only the informant who has assigned role of opening fire with the gun but none of the other witnesses who were inmates house at the time of alleged incidence have assigned any role to the applicant The star witnesses daughter of the informant, Kajal has not named the applicant for opening fire and there is no corroborating the evidence of the other inmates of the house who are eye witnesses of the alleged incidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 22.12.2020.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the cause of death in autopsy fire arm injury and the informant has assigned the specific role to the applicant in regard opening fire.

¶11

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the applicant, namely, Sonu Kumar, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Macluskiganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2020.

¶12

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶13

Bibha/SK

Sonu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar 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

Pradip Seth Alias Madan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanchan Hembrum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naeem Rangsaj Alias Damdam Rangsaj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Ram Alias Chhotu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand