Allowed

Shekh Majnu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Dec 2021B.A./9447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to a petitioner accused in a case involving suspicious death due to lack of direct evidence, directing him to furnish a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

Shekh Majnu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9447 of 2021

¶2

Shekh Majnu ... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through- Video Conferencing

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.

¶5

03/08.12.2021 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

¶6

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 95 of 2021.

¶7

The husband of the informant had left the house by a bicycle. Subsequently one Sk. Memur had come to return the cycle to her home. It has been alleged that Sk. Jafar had come in the evening and asked about the whereabouts of her husband which had cast a doubt in the mind of the informant at which the matter was reported to the Police Station and on the next day the dead body of her husband was found near a dam.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the implication of the petitioner is only on account of the fact that Sk. Jafar had disclosed that the petitioner had send him to ask about the whereabouts of the husband of the informant. It has further been submitted that when the informant had asked about her husband the petitioner did not gave a reply. It has been submitted that one of the co-accused namely, Sk. Jafar has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 11607 of 2021.

¶9

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶10

There does not seem to be any direct evidence or any eye-witness to the occurrence. The only incriminating factor against the petitioner seems to be the disclosure made by Sk.

¶11

-2-

¶12

Jafar and the evasive reply given by the petitioner on being asked by the informant about the whereabouts of her husband. The cause of death of the deceased was opined to be on account of asphyxia as a result of drowning.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 95 of 2021.

¶14

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶15

Alok/-

Shekh Majnu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekh Majnu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khushdil Ansari Alias Khushadil Ansari Alias Khusdil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shahnawaz Khan Alias Dabur Alias Sonu Alias Shanawaz Khan Alias Dabar Alias Shanwaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandar Kumar Alias Sikandar Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandip Kumar Saha Alias Sandip Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand