Budhan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2024B.A./6249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; bail application allowed; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded almost two years after occurrence; veracity doubted owing to drunken condition; Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 42/2023; U.D. Case No. 07/2021; murder of Bhagwan Singh; witness Kajru Singh; informant-side Taramuni Devi; S.D.J.M., Latehar; bail bond Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties; Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.; single-judge bench.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Latehar in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 42/2023. ¶¶10

Budhan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 6249 of 2024

¶3

Budhan Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- Opposite Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay --For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. For the O.P : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P

¶6

04/06.08.2024 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P.

¶7

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 42/2023.

¶8

It has been alleged that the father of Taramuni Devi had died on account of suffering injuries due to falling on stone. It has further been alleged that subsequently one Kajru Singh had disclosed that he, the petitioner, as well as the deceased were going back to their home, when the petitioner in a drunken state had committed the murder of the father of Taramuni Devi.

¶9

It has been submitted by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the death of Bhagwan Singh, U.D. Case No. 07/2021 was instituted and after two years from the date of occurrence, Kajru Singh had recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he has alleged that the petitioner had committed the murder of Bhagwan Singh.

¶10

Learned counsel submits that Kajru Singh as well as the other persons were in a drunken condition as stated by Kajru Singh as in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Regard being had to the fact that the 164 Cr. P.C. statement of Kajru Singh was recorded after almost two years from the date of occurrence, whose veracity appears to be doubtful on account of the fact that they were in a drunken condition, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Latehar in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 42/2023.

¶11

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶12

Preet/-

Budhan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhan Singh 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

Girdhari Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Nath Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangam Ji Alias Pintu Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhanshu Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dular Chand Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manohar Parahiya Alias Bimlesh Parahiya Vs the State of Jharkhand