The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application filed by Tulsi Singh and Jadu Singh, who were accused of murder under sections 302/34 IPC. The bench found that fledgling evidence, including confessional statements and recovery of the weapon, justified rejection.
Bail application rejected; applicants 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. 12399 of 2021
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND Through: Video Conferencing
For the petitioners : Mrs. Renu Bala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
04/ 20.01.2022 This bail application is on behalf of applicants Tulsi Singh and Jadu Singh with a prayer to release them on bail in case crime being Barwadih P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 540 of 2021 (District- Latehar), registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that FIR of this case was lodged against three named accused persons, including the applicants, by the informant in regard to the murder of her husband with the motive that there was dispute on the issue of land in which brick kiln was being set up by the applicantsaccused persons and it is further submitted that on 14.01.2021 also quarrel took place between her husband and accused persons and the matter was settled by the Panchayat . Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been named on account of animosity and there is no direct evidence against the applicants and the weapon which is alleged to be used to murder, is alleged to be recovered at the confessional statement and pointing out of accused Tulsi Singh (applicant no. 1) and the same has been planted. It is further submitted that there is no independent witnesses of the seizure memo and this weapon ( katari) was also washed away after using the same in committing murder and, as such, there is no evidence that this weapon was used in committing the murder of the
deceased. It is further submitted that the applicants have been languishing in jail since 20.04.2021.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that applicants and two other accused have been specifically named in the FIR in regard to committing murder of the husband of the informant and the motive of committing the murder is the land dispute and for the same reason, Mar-pit had taken place a few days before and the matter was pacified by the Panchayat . This motive has also been supported with the statement of the independent witnesses. It is also further submitted that in chain of circumstantial evidence, there is also confessional statement of applicant no. 1 (Tulsi Singh) on whose confessional statement and pointing out, the weapon katari, which was used in murder of the husband of the informant, was recovered and the dried blood was also thereon, which has been taken in custody by the I.O. and sent for examination and the FSL report is awaited. It is also submitted that as per post mortem report, cause of the death is on account of shock and hemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem injures which were caused by sharp aged weapon. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the State that complicity of the applicants in commission of the offence is also confessed by applicant no. 2 and also co-accused Tulsi Singh.
In view of the submissions made and considering the materials available on record this bail application of the applicants is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
A.K.Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicants charged with murder.
Whether the motivations for bail reliefs, such as land dispute and planted evidence allegations, justify release.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
