Allowed

Pramod Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2022B.A./2731/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to two petitioners—accused of murder and assault—who were named only in co-accused confessional statements and not in the FIR. The Court allowed release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with conditions requiring monthly appearance at the police station.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to appearance before OIC Gidhour Police Station once a month.

Pramod Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 2731 of 2022

¶3

Pramod Yadav

¶4

Manish Yadav.…..... Petitioners

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand. ………… Opp. Party

¶6

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.K.Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P.

¶8

2/21.03.2022 Defects ignored.

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioners are accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342,323, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶11

As per the FIR, 12 named and 10-12 unknown persons assaulted Devendra Yadav and Jagarnath Pandit and committed murder.

¶12

From the impugned order, I find that there is specific allegation against the named accused person and specific over act has been attributed to each of them, but so far as these petitioners are concerned, they are not named in the FIR and their name transpired on the confessional statement of the co-accused Vijay Kr. Yadav and Santosh Kumar Yadav. Further, I find that from the mobile phone location these petitioners were arrested as their phone was found in the said location to that of the co-accused.

¶13

Considering the fact that the name of these petitioners transpired on the confessional statement of the co-accused and they are not named in the FIR and the fact that there is no specific overt act against these petitioners though there is specific over act against the named accused person, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, both the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021, subject to the condition that the petitioners will appear before the Officersin-Charge, Gidhour Police Station, Chatra once in every month and will mark their attendance, failing which, the bail bonds of the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the Officers-in-Charge will be at liberty to take all steps for their re-arrest.

¶14

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶15

Mukund/-cp.3

Pramod Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Yadav 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

MD Nishar Ansari Alias Nishar Ansari Alias Guddu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Yadav Alias Akhilesh Kumar Alias Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Kumar Agrlwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Tana Bhagat Alias Anil Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand