Allowed

Shriram Angariya v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Sept 2024B.A./7493/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an accused in a sessions trial for alleged killing of the informant's husband under Sections 364/34, with omnibus allegations, no eyewitnesses, custody since October 2022, and similarly situated co-accused already released. Court granted bail on furnishing bonds with conditions to cooperate in trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.25,000 bond with two like sureties, to cooperate in trial and appear on each date before Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

Shriram Angariya Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7493 of 2024

¶2

Shriram Angariya, aged about 30 years, son of Jaipal Angariya, resident of village Birsing Hatu, P.O. & P.S. Tonto, District- West Singhbhum

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sushma Aind, APP

¶8

-----

¶9

2/03.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State.

¶10

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No.110 of 2023, arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No.47 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.24 of 2023, registered under Sections 364/34 on 01.10.2022.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the allegations set out in the FIR is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons had killed the husband of the informant.

¶12

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that altogether seven persons have been named in the FIR and this petitioner is one of them, but no specific allegation has been attributed against any one of them. It has further been pointed out that the entire allegations are omnibus and general in nature and admittedly there is no eyewitness to this case.

¶13

Further it has been submitted that the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely Domke Angariya in B.A. No.10382 of 2023 vide order dated 23.04.2024, Sona Angariya in B.A. No.3383 of 2024 vide order dated 13.05.2024 and Rahul Angaria in B.A. No.6403 of 2024 vide order dated 26.07.2024 have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this court and the case of this petitioner also stand on similar footing, although it is stated that the confessional statement of this petitioner was recorded at first among all the apprehended persons and on that basis, the bones of the deceased are said to have been recovered.

¶14

Further it has been submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 14.10.2022 and the charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and therefore the possibility of tampering with the evidence is very remote and therefore it is submitted that this petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that on

¶16

the basis of the confessional statement of this petitioner, bones of the deceased have been recovered and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, although he did not controvert this fact that the similarly situated co-accused persons namely Domke Angariya in B.A. No.10382 of 2023 vide order dated 23.04.2024, Sona Angariya in B.A. No.3383 of 2024 vide order dated 13.05.2024 and Rahul Angaria in B.A. No.6403 of 2024 vide order dated 26.07.2024 have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this court.

¶17

8 Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case.

¶18

Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with S.T. No.110 of 2023, arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No.47 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.24 of 2023, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the trail and will appear before the learned court below on each and every date as and when required by them, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for the cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶20

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶21

R.Kumar

¶22

-2-

Shriram Angariya v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Angariya 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

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Rajput Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karimul Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ankush Vastayayan Alias Ankush Vatsyayan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunti Bhunini Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhutnath Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand