Jairam Prasad Alias Jay Ram Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 4581 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Sah @ Rakesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party With B.A No. 5867 of 2023

¶3

Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party

¶4

With B.A No. 7185 of 2023

¶5

Jairam Prasad @ Jay Ram Prasad ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party

¶6

With

¶7

B.A No. 7966 of 2023

¶8

Raju Kumar Singh @ Lala @ Raju Kr. Singh @ Raju --Petitioner

¶9

Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party --CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶10

--For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 3, Advocate [B.A 4581/2023]

¶11

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naween Kumar, Advocate [B.A 5867/2023 & B.A. 7966/2023] Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate [B.A. 7185/2023] For the O.P-State: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. [B.A. 4581/2023] Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P [B.A. 5867/2023] Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P [B.A. 7185/2023] Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P [B.A. No. 7966/2023] For the Informant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate [B.A. 4581/2023] Mr Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate [B.A 7185/2023] ---

¶12

13 / 09.02.2024 All these bail applications arise out of the same police case, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶13

Petitioners have been made accused in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Ms. Rashim Chandel, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro.

¶14

On 07.01.2023, staff of the Informant Bhim Singh left his quarter with Rakesh Kumar Sah (Petitioner in B.A. 4581/2023). It is alleged that both of them consumed liquor and entered into brawl. In the meantime, Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Singh (petitioner in B.A. No. 5867/2023), Jai Ram Prasad (petitioner in

¶15

¶16

B.A. 7185/2023) and Raju Kumar Singh (petitioner in B.A. 7966/2023) came there and they abducted Bhim Singh and thereafter, dead body of Bhim Singh was recovered in Purulia, for which initially a U.D. Case was instituted and subsequently, it was converted into a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Case diary earlier called for, has been received.

¶18

Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Sah submitted that the Informant is not an eyewitness of abduction of the victim. He further submitted that from the evidence on record, it appears that this petitioner had never left Bokaro. It was finally submitted that the petitioner has to look after his two children aged two and four years as his wife has died and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Vijay Yadav and Raju Kumar Singh submitted that witnesses Awadhesh Singh and Md. Dilshad have stated in their statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P.C. that they had seen the petitioners going away with the victim in a car, but these witnesses during the course of the trial had turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. He further referred to paragraph183 of the case diary where statement of the witness Jyoti Kumar Singh @ Chunky has been recorded. He has stated that on the date of occurrence when he was in Delhi, petitioner Rakesh Kumar Sah has called him and told him that the accused persons had abducted Bhim Singh and they were taking him away in the car and he was following them. In the meantime, he dashed a scooty rider, due to which, local persons snatched the key of his car and Rakesh Kumar Sah requested him to intervene and get the keys of his car back. It was submitted that this witness has also turned hostile. The victim Bhim Singh left his quarter with the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Sah and thereafter he went missing.

¶20

Witnesses Awadhesh Singh and Md. Dilshad have stated in their statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P.C that they saw all the four petitioners abducting the victim and driving him away in a car. Subsequently, dead body of the victim was recovered in Purulia where initially U.D case was instituted and subsequently, it was converted into a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Jairam Prasad submitted that all the accused persons were remanded

¶22

¶23

in a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Purulia but they have been granted bail in that case.

¶24

From the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent that all the four petitioners were last seen with the victim and witnesses had seen them assaulting the victim and thereafter, driving him away and subsequently his dead body was recovered. Trial is under progress.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶26

Learned Trial Court shall expedite the trial.

¶27

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶28

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Jairam Prasad Alias Jay Ram Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam Prasad Alias Jay Ram Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bachhan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Sure Stop Brakes P Ltd. through Its Managing Director T Niranjan Prasad Vs Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director and Anr.

Sugriv Puran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somlal Hembram Alias Munu Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand