Allowed

Ram Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2024B.A./5166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a double murder case registered under Sections 449, 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The court found it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, subject to trial-cooperation conditions.

Ram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5166 of 2024

¶2

Ram Munda, aged about 22 years, son of Bandhan Munda, resident of Tilta, Pahan Toli, P.O. and P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶3

--- --- Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate

¶7

Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

¶8

03/14.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶9

A.P.P. representing the State.

¶10

Petitioner is an accused in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 77 of 2024 for the offence registered under Section 449,302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation as set out in the F.I.R against the petitioner is that he along with coaccused persons has killed the husband of the informant namely Birsa Oraon and one woman namely Soni Munda. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and has been implicated in this case only on the basis of mere suspicion. It has also been pointed out that this petitioner was having love affairs with the daughter of the informant namely Anima Toppo whose statement has also been recorded during course of investigation. Further it has been pointed out that this petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2024 and charge in this case has been framed and therefore, possibility of tempering with evidence is very remote. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and statement to that effect has been made in para 13 of the bail application. Therefore, it is submitted that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners and submitted that involvement of the petitioner in alleged crime cannot be ruled out in view of the statement of Anima Toppo, daughter of the deceased and also the confessional statement of this petitioner, on whose confession recovery has been made from the co-accused Allaudin Ansari, who has also confessed his guilt and therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 77 of 2024, 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, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail.

¶16

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶17

A.Mohanty

¶18

Ram Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Munda 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

Sanjay Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Junaid Vs the State of Jharkhand

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