Dismissed

Sulendar Bediya Alias Surendar Bedia v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2024B.A./6413/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a bail application filed by a petitioner accused of murder and participating in an unlawful assembly. The court observed that trial witnesses did not support the prosecution and relied on FIR and medical evidence to reject bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sulendar Bediya Alias Surendar Bedia Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6413 of 2024

¶2

Sulendar Bediya @ Surendar Bedia, aged about 34 years, S/o Sri Jaypal Bediya, R/o Village Gunja, P.O. Handebili, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi

¶3

….. ...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP -------- Order No.06 /Dated: 11^th September, 2024

¶9

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State before this Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with prayer to release on bail in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.90 of 2023(S) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302, 323 of I.P.C., in which, cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 323, 447, 302 and 149 of I.P.C., pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Ranchi.

¶10

The FIR of this case was lodged against eleven named accused including the present petitioner and 4-5 unknown persons with these allegations that on 31.08.2023 at 11:00 O’clock of day time, the informant heard the sound of fight on his mobile phone then he rushed to his old house of his uncle and saw that the accused persons, namely, Mahendra Bediya, Hemant Bediya, Rajo Devi, Shahjnath Bediya, Shukra Munda, Anuj Bediya, Sanjeet Bediya, Pancheet Bediya, Surendra Bediya, Kameshwar Bediya, Ranjeet Bediya and 4-5 unknown persons armed with deadly weapons intruded in the house of his uncle and assaulted to his uncle, namely, Jhameshwar Bediya and two aunts, namely, Sarita Devi and Sanju Devi, whereby they sustained injury and blood was oozing. When he came to rescue them, he was also assaulted by them, whereby he sustained injury on his arm and he escaped himself. When he came back, he found his uncle and both aunt dead lying in pool of blood. A few days ago of occurrence, the dispute was arose between the uncle and the accused persons on the issue of pig, who had destroyed the paddy-crop of the accused persons, on which, all these accused persons having formed the unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon had committed the murder of his uncle and both the aunts.

¶11

-1-

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the trial has commenced and the witnesses, who were examined have not supported the prosecution but neither the deposition of the witnesses are annexed with this bail application nor filed by way of any supplementary affidavit.

¶13

The learned APP for the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the informant is the eyewitness of the occurrence and another eyewitness of the occurrence is the son of deceased. The informant in his re-statement has reiterated all those allegations made in the FIR. The place of occurrence is the house of the deceased near the railway station, wherein he was carrying restaurant and the whole family was residing there.

¶15

The prosecution witnesses Sweta Bedia, Jagni Devi and Sabita Kumari all came to know in regard to the occurrence from the informant. So far as the statement of Ayush Raj Kumar Bedia is concerned, he is the son of deceased 12 years old boy, who in paragraph No.82 of the case diary has stated that all the accused persons had assaulted his father and mother and on account of fear by raising alarm, he fled away towards the jungle. In postmortem report of Jhameshwar Bediya, the uncle of the informant, shown four antemortem injuries are shown caused by hard and blunt object and cause of death is shown head injury and hemorrhagic shock. In postmortem report of Sarita Devi, four antemortem injuries are shown caused by hard and blunt object and cause of death is shown due to head injury and its complications. In postmortem report of Sanju Devi, three abrasions and four lacerated wounds are shown caused by hard and blunt object. Cause of death is shown due to head injury and its complications.

¶16

The eyewitness account is corroborated with the medical evidence. The FIR was lodged against eleven named accused persons and the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against nine accused persons including the present petitioner. All these accused persons having formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, assaulted to the uncle of the informant and his both aunts and committed murder of three persons.

¶17

In view of the above, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

¶18

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶19

Madhav/-

¶20

-2-

Sulendar Bediya Alias Surendar Bedia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sulendar Bediya Alias Surendar Bedia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dablu Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Marcel Horo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohan Kaushik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Swarnakar Alias Bikash Swarnakar Alias Vikash Swarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand