The High Court of Jharkhand rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged under IPC Sections 302/201/34. The court held that a prior rejection on merit and the gravity of the offence preclude reconsideration despite bail being granted to co-accused.
None. The prayer for regular bail was 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. 745 of 2021
Mineshwar Oraon @ Muneshwar Oraon @ Minesar Oraon
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. -----
03/05.02.2021 The present bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with S.T. No. 50 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2020 passed in B.A. No. 3406 of 2020. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily for the reason that similarly situated co-accused Suneshwar Oraon and Sandeep Oraon have been granted regular bail by different Benches of this Court vide orders dated 17.10.2020 and 02.12.2020 passed in B.A. No. 4903 of 2020 and B.A. No. 9091 of 2020 respectively. Hence, keeping in view the parity to be maintained among the similarly situated accused persons, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that vide order dated 07.08.2020 passed in B.A. No. 3406 of 2020, the regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court keeping in view the following submission made by the learned A.P.P:
“The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail submits that witness Antoshi Oraon and Pintu Oraon have clearly stated that in the night of 11th July, 2019 they heard the noise of falling
something in a nearby well and thereafter in the torch light they saw that the aforesaid three persons including the petitioner were present there. In the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the well.”
It is further submitted that the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of the Benches of this Court while considering the bail applications of co-accused Suneshwar Oraon and Sandeep Oraon. This Court, after considering the available evidence against the petitioner, had earlier rejected his bail application on merit. Merely because subsequently two other co-accused persons have been granted bail, is not a proper ground for reconsideration of the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Hence, he may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the bail application was earlier rejected by this Court on merit and the alleged offence against him is of serious nature, I am not inclined to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of regular bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant regular bail to the petitioner when his bail application was previously rejected on merit.
Whether the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused constitutes a valid ground for reconsideration of the petitioner's bail prayer.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mineshwar Oraon @ Muneshwar Oraon @ Minesar Oraon
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
