Dismissed¶16

Raju Malto v. State of Jharkhand

Regular bail – Section 302 IPC – murder of wife

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2024B.A./1638/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raju Malto v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 1638 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, order dated 05.07.2024, Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. Regular bail rejected in a Section 302 IPC wife-murder case (Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 67 of 2022; S.T. No. 351 of 2022); charge framed 07.02.2023; 4 of 10 witnesses examined; custody since 30.07.2022; liberty to renew bail after four months if trial not concluded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the bail application after four months if the trial is not concluded. ¶16

Raju Malto Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1638 of 2024

¶2

------

¶3

Raju Malto .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶6

------

¶7

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P

¶9

Order No.07 Dated- 05.07.2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 67 of 2022 (S.T. No.351 of 2022) registered under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per FIR, allegation is that petitioner has committed murder of his wife by beating brutally with lathi, fists and danda.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has not committed murder of his wife rather she died due to falling from the mountain. Petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence. No weapon used in the offence has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 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. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.07.2022 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has committed murder of his wife and the nature of offence is serious and heinous. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and perusal of the status report, it appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 07.02.2023 and out of total 10

¶16

charge-sheet witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial court has sought four months’ time to conclude the trial and also in view of the smooth trial and nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record showing direct allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of his wife, I am not inclined to release the above named petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner named above is rejected.

¶17

However, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his bail application after four months, if the trial is not concluded.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Pappu/

Raju Malto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Malto v. 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

Jai Tarkeshwar Ganjhu Alias Tarkeshwar Ganju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baban Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Ram And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Deepak Das Alias Deepak Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand