Allowed

Lakhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024B.A./2925/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a father accused of murdering his son in a Sessions trial. The court considered the submissions and the record, found bail just and fair, and enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions of cooperation and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.25,000 bond with two like sureties, subject to cooperation and appearance before the trial court.

Lakhan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2925 of 2024

¶2

Lakhan Mahto, aged about 56 years, son of Gopal Mahto, resident of village-Jobhiya, P.O. & P.S. – Gola, District- Ramgarh

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP -----

¶8

10/09.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No.07 of 2024 arising out of Gola P.S. Case No.96 of 2023, registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code on 27.10.2023.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegations as set out in the FIR is that the petitioner, being the father of the deceased, has killed his son, who is the deceased in the present case.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire allegations are false and fabricated because of the fact that the informant Rakhi Devi had married with the deceased, who was in the habit of drinking and there have been some dispute between them.

¶12

Further, it has also been submitted that the informant had gone to her parents’ house ( maike ) on 20.10.2023 and she got the information about the missing of her husband on 23.10.2023 and thereafter she returned and found herself and located the dead body of the deceased on 27.10.2023 from a well in a jungle (forest) and all these events normally indicate that the informant herself was very much acquainted with the murder of her husband and thereafter she cooked up a story that she had gone to her parent’s house ( maike ) on 20.10.2023 and thereafter she came back from her parent’s house (maike) on 26.10.2023 and found the dead body on 27.10.2023 from a well in the jungle and therefore the involvement of the informant herself cannot be ruled out.

¶13

Further, it has also been submitted that four seizure lists have been prepared when the informant found the dead body from a well in the jungle and that speaks a voluminous against the informant.

¶14

Further, it has also been submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 28.10.2023 and the trial of this case has commenced and one of the witnesses has been examined and therefore the possibility of tampering with the evidence is very remote.

¶15

It has further been submitted that there is no criminal history against this petitioner as stated in para-18 of the bail application and therefore the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner submitting that several witnesses have been examined during the course of the investigation vide paras 5, 29, 30 and 31 of the case diary and all of them have supported the case that there was love marriage between the informant and the deceased and this petitioner was not happy with the said marriage and therefore, this petitioner, being the father, had killed his son, and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record of this case.

¶18

Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, in connection with S.T. No.07 of 2024 arising out of Gola P.S. Case No.96 of 2023, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the trail and will appear before the learned court below on each and every date as and when required by them, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for the cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶20

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶21

R.Kumar

¶22

-2-

Lakhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arshad Khan Alias Pachhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Ram Alias Mayank Varma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kail Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand