Dismissed¶¶16

Pankaj Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2024B.A./5909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 5909 of 2024, decided 05/06.09.2024 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath. Bail application of Pankaj Paswan, husband of deceased Kajal Kumari, accused under sections 304-B/34 IPC in S.T. Case No. 59/2024 (Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023) before the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh; earlier bail rejected via B.A. No. 2464 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024. With one of 13 witnesses examined and trial expected to conclude within eight months, the bail prayer was rejected; petitioner may renew the prayer if the trial is not concluded within eight months of receipt of the order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within eight months from the date of receipt of this order. ¶¶16

Pankaj Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 5909 of 2024

¶3

Pankaj Paswan, S/o Dilip Paswan, R/o Village- Koyaritola, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

¶6

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner: M/s. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : M/s. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P

¶9

05/06.09.2024 Heard the Parties.

¶10

Petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 59/2024, arising out of Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh.

¶11

Bail application of the petitioner has been earlier rejected by this court vide B.A. No. 2464 of 2024 vide order dated 25.04.2024.

¶12

Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased Kajal Kumari, who died within three months of marriage at her matrimonial home. Deceased had died due to asphyxia because of hanging. There is allegation that she was tortured by the accused persons including the petitioner to enforce the demand of dowry.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the independent witnesses have stated that the deceased had committed suicide due to some other reason and not because she was tortured for demand of dowry.

¶14

Report regarding the stage of the trial earlier called for has been received. It appears that out of 13 witnesses, one witness has been examined and the learned trial court has stated that the trial is likely to be concluded within eight months.

¶15

Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case and considering the fact that the trial of this case is under progress; I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected

¶16

If the trial is not concluded within eight months from the date of receipt of this order, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew this prayer for bail.

¶17

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶18

Saurabh

¶19

uploaded

Pankaj Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Paswan 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

Hemanti Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saraswati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Dr Ashish Kumar Jha Vs the Ranchi University

MD Makhdum Safi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Yadav Alias Ranjeet Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand