Allowed¶12

Horil Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2024B.A./4160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; offence under Section 302 IPC; Dumri P.S. Case No. 141 of 2023; A.C.J.M. Giridih; petitioner Horil Kumar Mahto in custody since 05.01.2024; charge-sheet filed; no criminal antecedent; parity with co-accused Taleshwar Kumar @ Bhagnu Mahto (B.A. No. 4156 of 2024, order dated 25.06.2024); bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two sureties; Justice Navneet Kumar; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; order dated 16th August, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih, subject to Section 439 Cr.P.C. conditions and appearance before the Court below on every date. ¶12

Horil Kumar 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. 4160 of 2024

¶2

Horil Kumar Mahto ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party -------

¶3

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶4

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 01, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Abhay Kishore, Advocate --------

¶5

Order No. 05 / Dated 16^th August, 2024

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶7

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 141 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. is that the informant’s husband who was a priest was taken from his home on a motorcycle by an unknown person on 25.12.2023, around 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. whom she did not know but believed that she could identify him, if seen again. She has further alleged that a person who is the resident of Telkhara Telaiya Ambadih, is responsible for her husband’s murder as the body was found nearby.

¶8

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 petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and certain call detail reports collected during investigation and no substantial piece of evidence has been collected showing the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and no specific overt act has been attributed against him. It has further been submitted that bail has been granted to the co-accused Taleshwar Kumar @ Bhagnu Mahto vide

¶9

order dated 25.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4156 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2024 as stated in para -11 of the bail application and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore, the possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant have vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner but did not deny the fact that the petitioner has no criminal history and the co-accused Taleshwar Kumar @ Bhagnu Mahto vide order dated 25.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4156 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

In the light of the persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the parties and under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, 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 A.C.J.M, Giridih, in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 141 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and further, subject to the condition that the petitioner will appear before the learned Court below on each and every date as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail.

¶13

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶14

2 B.A. No.4160 of 2024

¶15

D.S.

Horil Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Horil Kumar Mahto 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

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

Vipul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shrawan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand