Allowed

Mritunjai Kumar Alias Mithun Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024B.A./7928/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a Chutia P.S. murder case arising from a shooting outside a sports bar. The petitioner's counsel argued no specific role was attributed to him in CCTV footage and co-accused were granted bail; the State conceded parity and bail was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mritunjai Kumar Alias Mithun Yadav Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7928 of 2024

¶2

Mritunjai Kumar @ Mithun Yadav @ Mritunjay, aged about 34 years, S/o Krishan Yadav, R/o Village Gari, Hotwar, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ….. ...... Petitioner

¶3

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

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶5

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP

¶6

-------- Order No.02 /Dated: 9^th September, 2024

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with prayer to release on bail in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.117 of 2024 registered under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi.

¶9

The FIR of this case was lodged against seven named accused including the petitioner and unknown persons, wherein the allegations are made that on 26.05.2024 at 8:30 O’clock, Abhishek Singh along with his companion came to the gate of Xtreme Sports Bar & Grill, all were in intoxicated state of mind and after having drunk wine Abhishek Singh along with his associates came to the dance floor whereby the some female customers who were earlier on the dance floor felt themselves uneasy and complaint was made to the informant who along with bouncers reached there and asked Abhishek Singh and his associate to go from dance floor. Some fight took place, thereafter, all were made out from the bar. One of them was in too intoxicated state of mind that he fell down on the ground and rest of his associates ousted from the bar. Thereafter, Abhishek Singh along with his associates began to hurl abuse to the staff of informant at the bar and also began to assault with lathi & danda . The police was also called over the phone. Before the police came, the accused Abhishek Singh along with his friends leaving one who was too intoxicated, went away from there. The person who was too intoxicated

¶10

-1-

¶11

was identified as Samiruddin @ Chhotu. Police took him with them and at 12:00 O'clock the bar was closed, staff were to go their house. One DJ operator Sandeep Kumar Pramanik @ DJ Sandy was also going to his house. As he came out at 01:18 O’clock near the lift, the bullet sound was heard which also hit to the mirror of the bar and police was also informed. The injured body of DJ operator Sandeep Kumar Pramanik @ DJ Sandy was lying on the floor who was taken to Hospital, RIMS where he was declared dead. In CCTV footage it was identified that at 01:18 O’clock, it was Abhishek Singh who was armed with rifle came out from the lift and shot to Sandeep Kumar Pramanik @ DJ Sandy, who was also awaiting outside the lift. As such all the accused persons under a conspiracy has committed the said offence, this FIR was lodged.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in CCTV footage it was only Abhishek Singh, to whom, the role of shooting Sandeep Kumar Pramanik @ DJ Sandy has been attributed. No specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner and the co-accused, namely, Samiruddin @ Chhotu in B.A. No.6860 of 2024 and Prateek Singh @ Prateek in B.A. No.6650 of 2024 have been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 16.08.2024 and the case of the present petitioner is also identical.

¶13

Learned APP for the stated opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but conceded on the point of parity. 6. In view of the above, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in aforesaid cases.

¶14

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶15

Madhav/-

¶16

-2-

Mritunjai Kumar Alias Mithun Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mritunjai Kumar Alias Mithun Yadav v. 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

Hari Tiwari Alias Dhirendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jarman Kerai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Karan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chambar Singh Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harijan Jamuda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bagun Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand