Pachu Parahiya Alias Caitu Parhiya Alias Pachu Prahiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1760 of 2024

Pachu Parahiya @ Chaitu Parhiya @ Pachu Parhiya, aged about 23 years, Son of Sukhadi Parhiya, Resident of Village-Suli, P.O.-Udaypur, P.S.Ramkanda, District-Garhwa ... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. --------

¶7

Order No. 03 / Dated 16^th August, 2024

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Garhwa.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegations as narrated in the F.I.R. is that this petitioner along with his mother and father has killed his wife. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire allegations are false and fabricated in view of the fact that there is no specific allegation of causing any torture, cruelty and demand of dowry and it has only come in the evidence that there had been some altercations on the trivial issues between husband-petitioner and wife. Further it has been submitted that allegations were alleged against the father and mother of the petitioner but during the course of the investigation no such evidence came against the parents of this petitioner to cause any torture, cruelty or assailing to the victim. Further it has also been stated that some of the independent witnesses namely Kunti Devi, Satendra Saw and Kamoda Devi have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and they have stated that the victim herself had consumed poison by which she died but from the F.S.L. Report the entire statement gets falsified where no poison has been found. Further it has also been pointed out in para 50 of the

¶11

case-diary that from the post-mortem report, no definite cause of death has been found by the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased thus the prosecution allegations are not supported either by the oral evidence or by the scientific evidence including post-mortem report and F.S.L. report. Further it has been submitted that this petitioner is in jail since 23.11.2023 and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and there is no evidence in support of the prosecution that it was the petitioner who has killed the wife except that there had been some altercations on the trivial issue therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

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 the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and all the witnesses have supported the case that there had been some altercations between both husband-petitioner and wife although she did not deny the fact that there is no evidence of administering poison as evident from the F.S.L. Report in para 22 of case diary nor in the post-mortem report of poisoning to the deceased.

¶13

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

¶14

In the light of the 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Garhwa, in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 78 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.

¶15

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶16

Basant/S. Das

¶17

2 B.A. No.1760 of 2024

Pachu Parahiya Alias Caitu Parhiya Alias Pachu Prahiya v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pachu Parahiya Alias Caitu Parhiya Alias Pachu Prahiya 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

Bariesh Hansda Alias Barish Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manju Devi Alias Kajal Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saurav Kumar Alias Sorav Kumar Alias Sourav Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Horil Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vipul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shrawan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand