Sitaram Kumar Mallah Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 562 of 2024

¶2

Sitaram Kumar Mallah --- --- Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

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

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

¶7

03/12.04.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

¶8

This is an application for regular bail in which petitioner is an accused in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2023 for the offence registered under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

¶9

The gist of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner along with co-accused have committed murder of the deceased Uttam Kumar Hansda. It has been submitted that the entire allegations are false and fabricated in view of the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased met with an accident by his motorcycle by which this petitioner Sitaram Kumar Mallah was injured and the motorcycle of the petitioner was also damaged. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that after the said accident petitioner along with one Nandulal indulged in a fight with the deceased, which was pacified upon the intervention of the villagers and the people standing around the accident site. It is further submitted that the deceased went away from the place of occurrence and thereafter his dead body was found hanging from the tree. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that this petitioner along with said Nandulal had caused any kind of injury upon the deceased due to which he died. The post mortem report also suggest that death was caused due to asphyxia by hanging. It is further submitted that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet under section 306/34 of the IPC and not under section 302 of the IPC. It is further been submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner as stated in para 19 of the bail application.

¶10

-2-

¶11

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is involved in the commission of the offence but he did not controvert the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted under section 306 IPC and not under section 302 IPC

¶12

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

¶13

Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and materials in record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, are directed to be released 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 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 92 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, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of bail.

¶15

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶16

A.Mohanty

Sitaram Kumar Mallah v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Kumar Mallah 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

Jai Kumar Alias Jeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pandeya Tuti Alias Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gulam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhai Lal Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punit Kumar Yadav Alias Punit Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajiv Samad Alias Rajeev Samad Vs the State of Jharkhand