Manik Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4649 of 2024

Manik Sharma aged about 22 years, s/o Vijay Sharma, r/o village Dandar Kala, P.O. and P.S. Panki, District Palamau. --- --- Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.

¶5

06/06.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

¶6

Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 101 of 2024 arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023 for the offence registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau.

¶7

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the allegation set out in the F.I.R, petitioner along with co-accused persons have committed murder of Satyendra Kumar @ Bhola @ Guddu when the deceased was indulged in gambling. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire allegations are false and fabricated as no one has seen the occurrence and only on the basis of previous enmity this petitioner has been named. Further, it has been pointed out that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased was in bad company of miscreants and his guardian’s/well-wisher’s/ family members had been warning him to leave them and because of bad association with the miscreants he had been to jail also, as evident from the F.I.R. It has further been pointed out that the deceased at the time of occurrence was indulged in gambling along with several persons and witness Kuku Thakur and Lalan Mahto were also said to be present at the time of occurrence. The statement of Kuku Thakur and Lalan Mahto has been recorded at para 13 and 21 respectively of the case diary and they did not support the case of the prosecution that it was the

¶8

petitioner who had shot bullet upon the deceased. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2023 and charge has been framed on 02.04.2024 and therefore, possibility of tempering with evidence is very remote. Therefore, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that there is strong suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime because of his previous enmity and threatening given by the petitioner to the deceased. It has further been pointed out that petitioner has two criminal antecedents as has been stated in para 33 of the case diary and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, although he did not controvert the fact that no one has stated that it was the petitioner who has killed the deceased.

¶10

Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case.

¶11

In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau in connection with S.T. Case No. 101 of 2024 arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023, subject to the condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the court below and he will remain present on every and each date of the criminal trial as and when required by the learned Trial Court, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail.

¶13

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶14

A.Mohanty

¶15

2

Manik Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Sharma 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

Ramesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kisu Gupta Alias Harsh Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babul Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Nisar Alias MD Nishar Alias Nisar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reena Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand