Rakesh Kumar Baidya v. the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 5204 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Baidya ... Petitioner

The State of Jharkhand

-Versus… ... Opposite Party

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP

09/20.12.2023: Heard both the counsels.

The petitioner is an accused in this case for the offence registered under sections 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the FIR it is apparent that pieces of body was found in certain place in jungle and no identification of the deceased was made. During investigation, it was found that the body was of Uday Kumar Baidya, who is the father of the petitioner. The learned counsel has pointed out to the order dated 08.09.2023, passed in BA No.3677 of 2023 whereby one Pankaj Kumar Mishra has not been granted bail and also pointed out to the arguments of the learned counsel for the State therein, who had submitted that paragraph no.51 of the case diary shows that Sanjana Pandey who is the daughter of the deceased stated that son of the deceased is fully responsible for the death of his father. The learned counsel for the State had also pointed paragraph no.72 of the case diary and had submitted that call-detail-reports of their mobile numbers show that on the date of occurrence Pankaj Kumar Mishra and Rakesh Kumar Baidya (the petitioner herein) had talked to each other 19 times and, therefore, the prayer for bail of Pankaj Kumar Mishra was refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed the xerox copy of the certified copy the deposition of Sanjana Pandey in Court and has submitted that she in her evidence in Court has deposed that she has denied the statement made in paragraph no.51 of the case diary and, therefore, there is nothing now against the present petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that even PW-2, who is the informant has stated that the skeleton of the deceased was not able to be recognized. The learned counsel has further submitted that except the confession of the petitioner, there is nothing against him. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2023. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted privilege of bail.