Santosh Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Mehta @ Rohit Kumar, aged about 24 years, son of Nandlal Mehta, resident of Village Simariya, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma ...... Petitioner [In B.A. No.1416 of 2024]

¶10

With

¶11

B.A. No. 2843 of 2024

¶12

Bharat @ Karu @ Bharat Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Late Bandhan Ram @ Late Badhan Ram, resident of Village Manjhalitand, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma ...... Petitioner

¶13

Domchanch, District Koderma ...... Petitioner [In B.A. No.2843 of 2024] Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party [In all cases] ------

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶15

For the Petitioner	------- : Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, Advocate [B.A. No.1294 of 2024 & B.A. No.1416 of 2024] Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate [In B.A. No.2843 of 2024]
For the State	: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.PP [In B.A. No.1294 of 2024] Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, APP [In B.A. No.1416 of 2024] Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP
	[In B.A. No.2843 of 2024] --------

¶16

Order No.07 /Dated: 7^th August, 2024

¶17

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Spl.PP/APPs for the State.

¶18

All these three bail applications relate to the same case crime and all three are being disposed of by the common order.

¶19

These bail applications have been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioners with prayer to release on bail in connection with Domchanch P.S. Case No.31 of 2023, corresponding to S.T. Case No.80 of 2023 registered

¶20

-1-

¶21

under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 302/ 201/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code were added, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma.

¶22

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the daughter of the informant Soni Kumari @ Sonali 24 years old was missing from his house since 22.03.2023. She was having mobile phone No.8409816306. Sanha of the same was entered in the police station concerned and search was made of her. During search, it came to know that from one Deepak Saw, from whom, the daughter of the informant had been taking tuition and used to talk with his daughter by the mobile phone No.9708195405. On 21.03.2023, Deepak Saw under a conspiracy with his associates Bharat @ Karu, Santosh Mehta, Sanjay Kumar had abducted his daughter at 11:30 O’clock of 21.03.2023 with intent to commit her murder. His daughter was taken by Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.JH11M4793 and that vehicle was followed by Bharat @ Karu by his motorcycle and Sanjay Kumar Mahto was the driver of Apache motorcycle while the driver of Sumo car was Rohit Kumar. On this written information FIR of this case was registered against accused Deepak Saw, Bharat @ Karu, Sanjay Kumar Mahto and Rohit Kumar for the offence under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The re-statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and also stated that his daughter used to take tuition from Deepak Saw and also used to talk with Deepak Saw. The friend of Deepak Saw, namely, Rohit Kumar had booked the four-wheeler bearing registration No.JH11M4793 to sanction the education loan of his daughter for Tilaiya and Barhi. It was told by his daughter Soni Kumari to him, her mother and uncle, namely, Ranjeet Kumar. His daughter had been teaching in Victoria Public School, Bargo situated at Birjamu and whenever needed Deepak Saw with help of Rohit Kumar used to make drop by four-wheeler.

¶24

It is further alleged that Deepak Saw wanted to marry with his daughter and was also creating pressure for the same and was told by his daughter and the family members since Deepak Saw was handicapped his daughter refused to marry with him. Consequently, Deepak Saw after having taken in confidence to his daughter on 21.03.2023 called her over her mobile

¶25

-2-

¶26

phone for sanction of loan from Barhi Bank and when his daughter did not come back it came to know from kids playing near the School situated at Birjamu that they were seen going by four-wheeler and it also came to know that the four-wheeler bearing registration No.JH11M4793 was also being followed by two persons by the motorcycle and two were driving the fourwheeler.

¶27

In view of paragraph No.14 of the case diary, the location of the deceased was ascertained near Birjamu School going by four-wheeler. In paragraph No.20 of the case diary, the Investigating Officer reached to Badgo Chowk and in CCTV footage, which was in the shop of Mohan Jewelers, three persons were seen by the motorcycle, who were identified as Bharat @ Karu, Santosh Mehta and Ranjeet Kumar, who were following the four-wheeler Sumo Gold bearing registration No.JH11M4793 on 21.03.2024 at 11:30:09 hours. Thereafter, at Jai Nagar Road, one person was also seen going by motorcycle wearing yellow colour t-shirt, who also following the four-wheeler and that four-wheeler bearing registration No.JH11M4793 was belonged to Ganesh Pd. Sinha, who told that this four-wheeler had been soled by him to one Rohit Kumar Mehta under an agreement but the same could not be transferred in his name due to some technical reason.

¶28

The dead body of the abducted daughter of the informant was recovered on 27.03.2023 on the confessional statement and pointing out of Rohit Kumar as stated in paragraph Nos.42 to 46 of the case diary. The inquest report was also prepared of the deceased and postmortem was conducted. As per postmortem report, cause of death is shown throttling. The confessional statement of all these three accused persons were also recorded, who have narrated that how he committed the murder of the daughter of the deceased.

¶29

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it was Deepak Kumar Saw, who had love affair with the daughter of the informant and since the daughter of the informant had refused to marry with him on account of him being handicapped so Deepak Saw, under a conspiracy, committed murder to the daughter of the informant along with his associates who are named in the FIR. The dead body was recovered on the confessional statement of Rohit Kumar, which is the most incriminating circumstance against him, as such, the petitioner Rohit Kumar is not entitled to bail.

¶30

-3-

¶31

So far as the role of petitioner, Bharat @ Karu, Santosh Mehta and Sanjay Kumar Mehta are concerned, these three are also alleged to be involved in conspiracy and were also identified in CCTV footage. There is no other corroborating evidence against them in regard to the commission of the said offence, therefore, the petitioners, namely, Santosh Mehta, Sanjay Kumar Mehta in B.A. No.1294 of 2024 and Bharat @ Karu @ Bharat Kumar in B.A. No. 2843 of 2024 are entitled to bail.

¶32

Accordingly, B.A. No.1416 of 2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Rohit Kumar Mehta @ Rohit Kumar is hereby rejected. 12. In view of the above, B.A. No.1294 of 2024 filed on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Santosh Mehta and Sanjay Kumar Mehta and B.A. No. 2843 of 2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Bharat @ Karu @ Bharat Kumar are hereby allowed. Let the petitioners, namely, Santosh Mehta and Sanjay Kumar Mehta in B.A. No.1294 of 2024 and the petitioner, namely, Bharat @ Karu @ Bharat Kumar in B.A. No.2843 of 2024 be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in the aforesaid case.

¶33

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶34

Madhav/-

¶35

-4-

Santosh Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Mehta 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

Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sindoli Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karma Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand