Umesh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is accused in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No. 35 of 2023, registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

¶12

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the allegation set out in the F.I.R. is that a dead body was recovered from the Malgo River and accordingly an F.I.R. was instituted against unknown persons. It is submitted that this petitioner is quite innocent and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of last seen with the deceased. It is submitted that the petitioner has been seen with the deceased in the natural course of his job because he was the driver of the deceased and this fact is an admitted fact. Further, it has been pointed out that on the basis of the confessional statement of the deceased one key and mobile phone has been recovered and no incriminating article is said to have been recovered in order to connect his involvement in the commission of the offence. Further, it has been stated that on earlier occasion also the seizure list was prepared when the dead body was recovered from the river where inter-alia a stone was also seized which was said to have been used in killing the deceased person and therefore, the subsequent seizure list where a stone was recovered is insignificant. Further it has been stated that this petitioner is in

¶13

jail since 04.09.2023 and trial of this case has commenced and therefore, possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and there is no criminal history against this petitioner and thus he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it is a case of murder in which the petitioner being the driver has killed the deceased who was the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail .

¶15

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.

¶16

In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No. 35 of 2023, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and he will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

¶17

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶18

Basant/S. Das

¶19

2 B.A. No.12246 of 2023

Umesh Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Gope 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

Nihar Mishra Alias Bachcha Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Alias Sunny Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tikaram Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Bhuiyan Alias Anil Rikyasan Alias Sarkar Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand