Single-judge High Court of Jharkhand rejected a bail application filed by Surendra Ram in a murder case. The court noted strong last seen evidence and short time gap between last seen and discovery of body, overturning petitioner's accidental death claim.
Bail application rejected; accused continues to 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.9712 of 2021
Surendra Ram @ Surendra Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Shukla, A.P.P. --------
05/05.01.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant– Surendra Ram @ Surendra Kumar with prayer to release on bail in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No.23 of 2019 registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant against applicant-accused Surendra Ram in regard to murder of his son Ram Vichar Singh, who had called his son from his house to carry the sand by the tractor. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the deceased had met with an accident as a result of which he died. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 27.04.2021.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that as per F.I.R. allegations, there is evidence against the applicant of last seen. The applicant had accompanied the deceased on the fateful day and this last seen evidence is also corroborated with the statement of independent witness Gopal Singh and other witnesses. Moreover, the time gap between the last seen of the applicant with the deceased and the recovery of the dead body of the deceased is too short, which ultimately indicates that it was the applicant, who has committed the murder of the deceased. As per postmortem report, the cause of the death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
In view of the submissions made and material on record, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with murder under a 20-year bail application.
Whether the last seen evidence and time gap between_last seen and body recovery justify rejection of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Ram @ Surendra Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
