Ajit Hembrom Alias Ajeet Hembrom Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Ajit Hembrom Alias Ajeet Hembrom Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused in Lalmatiya P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 (Sections 302 and 34 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act) relating to the shooting death of the informant's son at the Dahua Mela on 25.04.2023, should be enlarged on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the nature of the allegation and the materials available on record showing involvement of the petitioners in the serious offence of murder of the deceased by shooting, the court was not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners; the bail prayer stands rejected.

Key takeaways

The grounds relied upon for denial of bail were the seriousness of the nature of the allegation and the materials available on record showing involvement of the petitioners in the serious offence of murder of the deceased by shooting.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application rejected — High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, B.A. No.1632 of 2024 (Ajit Hembrom @ Ajeet Hembrom & Patwari Soren v. The State of Jharkhand, Opposite Party), Order No.05 dated 10.06.2024, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (author). The petitioners stand accused in Lalmatiya P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising from the FIR-recorded death of the informant's son, who suffered a gunshot injury at the hands of some unknown miscreants at the Mela at Dahua on 25.04.2023 and was declared dead by the doctor. Per counsel for the petitioners, a charge-sheet has been submitted and both petitioners are in jail custody since 10.08.2023; counsel sought enlargement on bail with undertakings to co-operate with the trial and refrain from tampering with evidence, influencing or gaining over witnesses. Weighing the facts and circumstances, the seriousness of the allegation and the materials available on record showing the petitioners' involvement in the murder of the deceased by shooting, the court declined to extend the privilege of bail, which stands rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.1632 of 2024

Ajit Hembrom @ Ajeet Hembrom

Patwari Soren

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P.

Order No.05/Dated- 10.06.2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Lalmatiya P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that on 25.04.2023 at about 04:00 p.m. informant’s son went to Mela at Dahua wherein informant’s son-in-law met with her son but informant’s son did not return. Upon receiving information, she went there and found that her son had received gunshot injury by some unknown miscreants and thereafter, doctor declared him dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further stated that there is no material in the entire case diary showing involvement of the petitioners in the alleged murder. The confessional statement of the petitioners recorded by the police has no intensive in the eye of law. The alleged recovery of fire arm is a concocted story. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and the petitioners are in jail custody since 10.08.2023. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that during course of investigation sufficient positive materials have been collected showing involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence of murder of the deceased Anil Hembrom. The petitioners have given their voluntary disposal statement before police admitting the grievous description of the crime committed by them and the circumstances under which the murder of deceased was executed. The petitioners have been also arrested with one country made pistol and two live cartridges of 0.315 bore and 0.303 bore respectively. Post mortem report of the deceased also shows that he was shotted. Considering the gravity of offence and surety of punishment, petitioners do not deserve bail which is fit to be rejected. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, seriousness of nature of allegation and the materials available on record showing involvement of the petitioners in the serious offence of murder of the deceased by shooting, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners which stands rejected.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sachin