Allowed

Marcel Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024B.A./6885/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide by live-in partner who allegedly refused entry to the deceased. Court found no evidence of abetment and the unverified suicide note insufficient, and allowed bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Marcel Horo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6885 of 2024

¶2

Marcel Horo aged about 27 years S/o Tubiyas Horo, resident of village Kohra toil, P.O. Dorma, P.S. Torpa, District Khunti

¶3

..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

05/10^th September, 2024

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with the prayer to release on bail in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No. 42 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 17 of 2024), registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti.

¶11

The FIR of this case was lodged by the father of the deceased with these allegations that his daughter Ansu Soy had been residing in live-in relationship with Marcel Horo . Her husband used to torture her and also used to say that he would marry with another woman. He also made many effort to make his son-in-law understand. On 17.08.2023, he received the information that his daughter had committed suicide and from her purse a mobile phone and one bottle of poison was also recovered along with a suicide note. The reason of suicide was mentioned as her husband refused her to enter in the house. His daughter was also pregnant by three months. His daughter had also two and a half years old child. Hence, this FIR was lodged.

¶12

The informant in his restatement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also reiterated the allegations as made in the FIR. So far as the

¶13

¶14

commission of suicide by the deceased is concerned, for the same there is no evidence in regard to abeting her to commit suicide. Though in suicide note, it is mentione that, since her husband was refusing to her to enter in the house, so she committed suicide and this suicide note was not verified by the Investigating Officer whether the same was handwritten by the deceased or not.

¶15

In view of the above, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in the aforesaid case.

¶16

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶17

Rashmi

¶18

Marcel Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marcel Horo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Mandal Alias Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mritunjai Kumar Alias Mithun Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Mustak Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Majibur Rahman Alias Shekh Majibur Rahman Alias Sk Majibur Rahman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satya Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raja Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand