Allowed

Rahul Sahu Alias Chotu Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/832/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed to challenge the rejection of bail applications. The appellant had been in custody since 2019 with no witnesses examined and investigation pending against others. The bench allowed the appeal and granted bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties and complying with appearance and location conditions.

Rahul Sahu Alias Chotu Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 832 of 2022

¶2

¶3

Rahul Sahu @ Chotu Jaiswal

¶4

..… Appellant

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

14/16.08.2023 This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by Sri Asif Equbal, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2022, whereby the bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶12

2. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that the informant along with police personnel had gone near CRPF Camp, where the informant saw that his deceased son was shot to death. The informant has further alleged that the accused Deepak @ Pachahtara, Rohit Gupta (Juvenile) and Jagdish Gupta had committed murder of his son.

¶13

3. Heard Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected in Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2022 vide Order dated 29.06.2022 by this Court. It is further submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is

¶14

-2-

¶15

submitted that the appellant has been arrested on mere suspicion. It has further been submitted that the police has falsely implicated the appellant at the instance of vested interest. It is submitted that in the F.I.R. the informant has shown strong suspicion against three persons, namely Deepak @ Pachahtara, Rohit Gupta (Juvenile) and Jagdish Gupta, but police has not taken any action against them and the police has implicated the appellant mainly on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant as mentioned in para 19 of the case diary. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 04.9.2019, i.e. for around four years. It is submitted that till date no witness has been examined so far and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that though the appellant is not named in the F.I.R., however, the appellant is the assailant of the deceased Lakhan Yadav. It is further submitted that earlier prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2022. It is submitted that the appellant was arrested by the police on the basis of mobile phone and the C.D.R. details and the appellant has talked with the deceased Lakhan Yadav on 01.07.2019, at around 14:01:55 for 42 seconds as per the C.D.R. details. It is submitted that the appellant has

¶17

-3-

¶18

admitted his guilt in his confessional statement recorded at paragraph 19 of the Case Diary. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the appellant has also got one criminal antecedent and therefore, the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶19

6. Perused the impugned order and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and Perused the status report in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 278/2019, corresponding to Children Case No. 02/2022 sent by Mr. Asif Equbal, A.J.C.-IV-cumSpecial Judge POCSO, Ranchi, vide Letter No. 225 dated 17.04.2023.

¶20

7. It appears that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. It further appears that the informant has shown suspicion against three persons, namely Deepak@ Pachahtara, Rohit Gupta (Juvenile) and Jagdish Gupta, against whom investigation is pending.

¶21

It also appears from the F.I.R. that the deceased was last seen with one Rohit, who is the Tempo Owner.

¶22

8. From perusal of the photocopy of the C.D.R. details, produced by the learned A.P.P. before this Court during submission, it would appear that although the appellant is said to have contacted deceased Lakhan Yadav on 01.7.2019 on his mobile but thereafter four other persons have also called the appellant on his mobile for the certain periods.

¶23

-4-

¶24

9. It appears that save and except the confessional statement no other evidence has been brought by the police in the Case Diary and except the C.D.R. details brought today during the course of the hearing of this appeal. 10. From perusal of the Status report dated 17.04.2023 sent by learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ranchi, it appears that in total seven witnesses have been cited in the chargesheet, however, out of seven witnesses none has been examined till the date of the report. 11. Considering the period of custody and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 2088 of 2019, in Children Case No. 02 of 2022 and one of the Bailors must be a close relative of the appellant while the other should be a blood relation having property in his/her own specific name. However, the appellant shall appear before the court below on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial except for unforeseen circumstances and the appellant shall also submit self-attested copy of his Aadhar card and Mobile number before the learned court below

¶25

-5-

¶26

and shall not change the same and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, Ranchi without prior permission of the learned Court Below 12. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 832 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶27

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶28

s.m.

Rahul Sahu Alias Chotu Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sahu Alias Chotu Jaiswal 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

Parmeshwar Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramchandra Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand