Bail application in a murder case under section 302 IPC arising from a land-dispute killing by strangulation and stoning. The court noted witness statements of confession, postmortem showing asphyxia, and recovery of the plastic string on the petitioner's pointing out, and rejected bail.
None; bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5287 of 2024
Naren Singh, aged about 33 years, son of Late Ram Singh, resident of Village Simuldanga, P.O. Bhilai Pahari, P.S. MGM, Dimna, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP --------
Order No.10 /Dated: 16th August, 2024
-1-
son-in-law of the Uday Singh, namely, Naren Singh came and told that at 05:00 O’clock in the evening on account of land dispute between his mother-in-law and Kalipad Singh, he strangulated and hit with stone. Same kind of statement is also given by Jagram Singh, thereafter, both these witnesses along with Naren Singh also reached to the Pradhan of the village Khagendra Nath Singh, who has stated that on 16.08.2023 in the morning, Anil Singh and Jagran Singh came along with Naren Singh to his house and told that on account of land dispute, he had committed murder of Kalipad Singh.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/-
-2-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused in a murder case based on confession to witnesses, postmortem findings and recovery of the strangulation string should be granted bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naren Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
