Allowed

Saptamjeet Bagti v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Aug 2022B.A./4809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437 and 439 CrPC, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the release of the petitioner, an accused in a murder case, on bail upon filing of a bond and furnishing sureties, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Saptamjeet Bagti 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. 4809 of 2022

¶3

Saptamjeet Bagti …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party

¶6

----------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

-----

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Kr. Appu, A.P.P.

¶10

Order No.06/ Dated:17.08.2022

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. No. 63 of 2022 arising out of Tongra P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.70 of 2022, registered for the offence under Section 302, 201, 120B and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Principal District and Session Judge, Dumka.

¶13

F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown miscreants by the wife of the deceased stating therein that on 01.11.2021 at about 1.30 p.m, her husband was going to Sahabad Bengal, Birbhum by his omni vehicle bearing registration no. WB-38L-8086. It is further alleged that at about 4.30 p.m. her husband informed that he will return to home after getting off the passenger at Jaipur (Birbhum). It is alleged that till 6 p.m. he did not return then informant made telephonic call to other driver and at about 10.00 p.m. came to know that her husband has been set-on ablaze at Maisamangur Jungle. Upon this informant along with some other persons reached at the place of occurrence at about 12 hrs. in the night and saw the dead body of her husband under pool of blood, his two mobile phones were also missing and body was burnt.

¶14

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. rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion and on the confessional statement recorded by the police. It is further submitted that the story projected by the police through investigation that the deceased was preparing to set up an ice cream factory which might affect the business of one Jai Prakash Mandal, who has similar business and residing in the same village. Present petitioner is a simple daily wages labour and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession connecting him with the alleged offence of murder. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 08.11.2021 without rhymes and reasons. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons with similar allegation, namely, Narayan Mandal has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 3890 of 2022 vide order dated 02.05.2022. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate 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 evidence or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that trial is in progress and likely to be concluded within six months. There is allegation of murder of the deceased and present petitioner has confessed his guilt, hence at the present stage of proceeding petitioner may not be admitted to bail.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials showing involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Principal District and Session Judge, Dumka in connection with S.T. No. 63 of 2022 arising out of Tongra P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.70 of 2022 subject to the conditions:-

¶17

Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶18

Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

In case of violation of any of the conditions imposed above, the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself for the purpose of trial of the case.

¶20

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶21

R.K.

Saptamjeet Bagti v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saptamjeet Bagti 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

Antu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdev Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Sagar Alias Sanjit Sagar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangaram Swarnkar Alias Magaram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishal Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand