Allowed¶14

Sunny Kumar Soni Alias Golu Soni v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2024B.A./10041/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Jharkhand (Ranchi), B.A No. 10041 of 2023, Ambuj Nath J, 07.02.2024 — bail allowed to petitioner accused in Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023 (Ss. 302, 120-B/34 IPC; shooting death of informant Chhotu Kumar's younger brother in his shop on 11.06.2023). Co-accused: Rohit Singh, Malik Singh (earlier threats to vacate shop premises). Sole cogent material against petitioner: confessions of petitioner and co-accused. Relief: bail bonds Rs. 20,000 plus two like sureties before JM 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Smt. Shikha Agarwal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023. ¶14

Sunny Kumar Soni Alias Golu Soni Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 10041 of 2023

¶2

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶3

¶4

For the Petitioner: M/s A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the O.P-State: Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate

04/ 07.02.2024

Heard the parties.

Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Smt. Shikha Agarwal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.

¶9

On 11.06.2023 at about 1.00 p.m., younger brother of the Informant Chhotu Kumar was shot dead in his shop. The allegation against the petitioner is that he came to the house of the Informant and informed him about the occurrence.

¶10

Case diary earlier called for, has been received. It appears that prior to the occurrence, co-accused Rohit Singh and Malik Singh had threatened the Informant and his brother of dire consequences and had asked him to vacate the shop premises and thereafter, the deceased was shot dead.

¶11

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It was further submitted that co-accused Rohit Singh and Malik Singh had threatened the deceased prior to the occurrence and had asked him to vacate the shop premises, failing which, he would be shot.

¶12

Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Informant, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused persons including the petitioner have confessed their guilt

¶13

It appears that apart from confession of the petitioner and co-accused persons, there is no other cogent material against the petitioner on record.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Smt. Shikha Agarwal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023.

¶15

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶16

Ranjeet/

Sunny Kumar Soni Alias Golu Soni v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Kumar Soni Alias Golu Soni v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Vs Kailash Ganjhu and Anr.

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Law and Ors.

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs the Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager and Anr.

Ram Bachhan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Sure Stop Brakes P Ltd. through Its Managing Director T Niranjan Prasad Vs Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director and Anr.

Sugriv Puran Vs the State of Jharkhand