Kartik Kumar Alias Kartik Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Kartik Kumar Alias Kartik Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer allowed: petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020, subject to conditions of attendance on every trial date, abstention from similar offences, and non-tampering with prosecution evidences/witnesses, breach entailing cancellation of bail and taking into custody by the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Kartik Kumar @ Kartik Das, accused in Mahagama P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020 (Ss.341/323/376/506/34 IPC) pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the allegation, the materials available against the petitioner and his period of custody, the Court found itself inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each.

Key takeaways

Condition (1) of bail: the petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial unless prevented from sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.ratio¶14
Condition (2) of bail: the petitioner shall not indulge in any other or similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.ratio¶15
Condition (3) of bail: the petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

B.A. No.1978 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — Order No.06 dated 06.08.2024 by Hon'ble Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (single-member bench). Bail granted to petitioner Kartik Kumar @ Kartik Das, accused in Mahagama P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020 registered under Sections 341/323/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda. Per FIR, petitioner was alleged to have forcibly raped the informant ten days before her husband Puran Das died on 08.08.2020, and to have fatally assaulted the husband. Counsel for petitioner pleaded innocence and asserted custody since 25.11.2023 and absence of criminal antecedent; learned Addl. P.P. for the State opposed the bail prayer. Weighing the nature of allegation, materials available and the period of custody, the Court released the petitioner on a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, imposing conditions: (i) physical presence on every date till conclusion of trial unless prevented by sufficient cause; (ii) no indulgence in any other or similar offence till conclusion of trial; (iii) no tampering with prosecution evidences or influencing of prosecution witnesses — violation of these conditions entails cancellation of bail and taking into custody by the learned Trial Court itself. No precedent relied upon; purely an adjudicative bail order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.1978 of 2024

Kartik Kumar @ Kartik Das … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P.

Order No.06/Dated- 06.08.2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections 341/323/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Godda.

As per FIR, informant alleged that her husband, Puran Das, died on 08.08.2020. She claimed that ten days before his death, the petitioner/accused forcibly raped her. When she informed her husband, he scolded the accused petitioner, who then brutally assaulted her husband, causing grievous injuries. Her husband received treatment at various hospitals but eventually succumbed to his injuries, leading to lodging of the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that informant’s husband died due to illness as he was in habit of taking excessive liquor due to which, he was sick since long and was under treatment. The present case has been lodged with an intention to put pressure upon the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 25.11.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with

the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 198 of 2020 subject to the conditions:-

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses. In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the

petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned Trial Court itself.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sachin