Rituwa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No.549 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Both bail applications arising out of same FIR have been heard together.

¶13

On 29.07.2023, at about 9 AM, petitioners took the informant’s son to plough his land through tractor and petitioners got the son of Niraj Sahu aged about 3 years to sit on the said tractor inspite of protest of informant’s son. After ploughing, while the informant’s son was coming out from the land, the three years child fell down and succumbed to injury. After getting information about the occurrence, the informant rushed to the place and found his son lying under the wheel of tractor having sharp cut injury near temple(kanpatti). It is further alleged that petitioners have committed murder of his son and only to conceal the evidence, they put his son under the tractor.

¶14

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 with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that it is a case of negligent driving by the

¶15

informant’s son in which the three years’ old son of Niraj Sahu(petitioner) died. The informant’s son who was driving the said tractor and while trying to save the life of the deceased, he fell down from the tractor and came in contact with the mould board plough of the tractor and he also succumbed to his injuries, hence, the case is not made out under section 302 of IPC. Petitioners undertake to cooperate 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. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 23.12.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record and period of custody of the petitioners, I am inclined to release the above named petitioners, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM, 1^st Class, Lohardaga in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No.549 of 2023 with condition that petitioners shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless his physical appearance is dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Pappu/

Rituwa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rituwa Devi 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

Papu Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imran Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Singh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Anwar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Saw Alias Bittu Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand