In a bail petition by a petitioner charged with offences under Sections 364, 302 IPC and Witchcraft Act, the court heard arguments for renewal of bail application. Rejected, citing direct allegations against the petitioner and previous rejection of the bail application.
Bail application rejected; petitioner to remain in custody.
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. 9215 of 2021
Randho Lohra @ Budu Nag aged about 30 years S/o Manga Lohra, resident of village Hunt, P.o Arki, P.s Arki, District Khunti
.... ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ..... Opposite Party
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
Through Video Conferencing ---
2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 216 of 2019 arising out of Arki P.S. Case No. 37 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 64 of 2019, registered under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. and ¾ of Witchcraft Act and further added u/s 302/201/120B IPC, now pending in the court of learned Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-Ist, Khunti.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier along with one Mongla Munda in B.A. No. 3491 of 2019 vide order dated 29.08.2019. He submits that he has renewed his prayer for bail considering the fact that the charge was framed against the petitioner on 12.12.2019 and out of eight prosecution witnesses, none of the witnesses were examined till 02.07.2021.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations levelled against the petitioner. She submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits
2
and so far as non - examination of the witnesses are concerned, on account of COVID-19 situation, they might not have been examined. 6. The learned counsel for the State, on behalf of the State, undertakes to produce the witnesses promptly before the learned court below as and when the date is fixed for production of witnesses. She further undertakes to communicate this order to the concerned officer of the State.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there are direct allegations against the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected earlier by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2019 in B.A. No. 3491 of 2019, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/email’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering direct allegations and prior rejection of bail application.
Randho Lohra @ Budu Nag
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
