Ashok Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2519 of 2024

Ashok Kumar Mahato, son of Dhirendra Nath Mahato @ Dhirendra Mahatao, Resident of Jamgaria P.O. Jamgaria, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶7

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP ---------

¶8

03/ 18^th October, 2024

¶9

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Putki (Munidih) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that there is allegation against co-accused that he was also involved in marpit on account of touching of his vehicle by the vehicle of deceased and apart from that there is no iota of material collected during entire course of investigation which could remotely suggests involvement of petitioner in the present case. Lastly, it has been pointed out that initially an FIR has been registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but chargesheet qua co-accused has been submitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and undoubtedly, its a case of suicide and only on the allegation that prior to suicide this petitioner was also allegedly present and involve in marpit does not attract any of the statutory ingredient of offence U/s 306 of IPC. Learned counsel stated at bar that petitioner is having no criminal antecedent.

¶11

The learned APP opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶12

Perusal of record transpires that deceased visited to his in-laws house on 18.09.2023 and in the evening some quarrel took place between informant on the one side and co-accused and this petitioner on the other side on account of fact that when the deceased was moving his vehicle it touched the vehicle of Co-accused. Witnesses have stated that deceased was in drunken condition. It is further case of prosecution that thereafter, deceased left his inlaws house in the midnight and thereafter his dead body was found hanging on a tree. As stated

¶13

by learned counsel for the petitioner, chargesheet qua the co-accused Binod Kumar Mahto has already been submitted U/s 306 of IPC. This Court does not find any material in the case diary except the alleged quarrel took place between deceased and accused persons including the present petitioner. Tower location of mobile of this petitioner was also collected during course of investigation but it is not suggestive of a fact that petitioner was present at the place of occurrence where deceased committed suicide. Post mortem report reveals that death is on account of asphyxia and chargesheet has been submitted against co-accused person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner stated to be having no criminal antecedent. Nothing has been pointed out to this Court on behalf of State that why custodial interrogation/ custodial trial of is required in the present case.

¶14

5. Considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on his surrender, shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Putki (Munidih) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶16

Rajnish

Ashok Kumar Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Mahato 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

Surajnath Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Prasad Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purnima Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand