Dismissed

Jamuna Bhuian v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2022B.A./3299/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand refused bail to a petitioner charged with murder and witchcraft practices. While rejecting the bail prayer due to suspicion and direct involvement, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months considering the delay caused by the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six months.

Jamuna Bhuian 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. 3299 of 2022

¶3

Jamuna Bhuian …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

……Opposite party

¶7

----------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P.

¶11

Order No.09/ Dated:05.08.2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. No. 66 of 2019 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 109 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 440 of 2001, registered for the offence under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Latehar.

¶14

As per F.I.R. allegation is that present petitioner along with other coaccused has forcibly dragged the informant’s wife for curing her by ojha, because she is witch and doing black magic. It is alleged that the wife of the informant did not return to his house, then he went in search of her and saw that present petitioner and other co-accused were assaulting her by lathi. He returned to home due to fear and narrated about the incident to the villagers. In the meantime, on Friday at 12’o clock, both the accused persons carrying dead body of the informant’s wife threw in his courtyard saying that “bhoot has also vanished with her wife”.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the F.I.R. It is submitted that charges have been framed and no witness has been examined by the prosecution. There are general and direct allegation against the petitioner and informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence rather petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 28.10.2018 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing the murder, calling the informant’s wife witch and also indulged in taking her for some “Jhar Phook” by ojha and trial has commenced and likely to be concluded in near future. Considering the gravity of offence and severity of punishment, petitioner may not be admitted to bail.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record and also in view of direct involvement of the petitioner in case of murder of a lady on account of suspicion as witch, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at present stage of the proceeding, which stands rejected. However, from the report submitted by the learned trial court it appears that out of five charge sheeted witnesses only one has been examined till date due to spread of covid-19 pandemic, hence learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of this order, otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

R.K.

Jamuna Bhuian v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Bhuian 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

Ajaj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Kumar Mehta Alias Lalu Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Goutam Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaldip Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khiro Ravidash Vs the State of Jharkhand