Ramesh Hembrom Alias Rameshwar Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh Hembrom Alias Rameshwar Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022), subject to conditions: (1) physical presence on each and every date till conclusion of trial unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court; (2) no indulgence in any other or similar offence till conclusion of trial; (3) no tampering with prosecution evidences or influencing of prosecution witnesses; violation entails cancellation of bail and custody by the learned trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was on conditional bail since 21.09.2022 (B.A. No.9118 of 2022) but whose bail bond was cancelled after a single non-appearance on 08.04.2025, and whose fresh bail application (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.231 of 2025) was rejected on 10.09.2025 solely for violation of the attendance condition, should be admitted to bail afresh in Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022).

Court's answer

Finding substance in the petitioner's contentions (that he had not misused bail and his single absence was due to inadvertence), the Court allowed the prayer for bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions: (1) physical presence on each and every date till conclusion of trial unless prevented from sufficient cause; (2) no indulgence in any other or similar offence; (3) no tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing of prosecution witnesses, failing which the bail shall stand cancelled and the petitioner taken into custody by the learned trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — re-admission to bail after cancellation of bail bond for a single non-appearance. The petitioner, accused under Section 364(A) IPC in Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022) pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, was on bail since 21.09.2022 (B.A. No.9118 of 2022) with a condition to remain physically present on every trial date. On his failure to appear on 08.04.2025 due to inadvertence/misconception of the fixed date, his Section 317 Cr.P.C. application was rejected and his bail bond cancelled; his fresh bail application (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.231 of 2025) was also rejected on 10.09.2025 solely on the ground of violation of the attendance condition. Allowing the bail prayer, the Court (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) held that the petitioner had not misused bail otherwise than the said single absence, and admitted him to bail on a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two like sureties, imposing conditions of attendance on every trial date, abstention from similar offences, and no tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing of witnesses, breach entailing cancellation of bail and custody.

2025:JHHC:36397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.10379 of 2025

Ramesh Hembrom @ Rameshwar Murmu, aged about 36 years, Son of Barsan Murmu, Resident of Village – Tilaipara Santhali, P.O.- Dumarchir, P.S.- Amrapara, District – Pakur.

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gautam, Adv. For the State : None

Order No.03/Dated- 04.12.2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner but none appears on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022) registered for offences punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was all along on bail vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in B.A. No.9118 of 2022 wherein a condition was imposed that petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not able to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.04.2025 due to inadvertence misconception of date fixed in the case. Therefore, his counsel filed an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned Trial Court and bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for fresh bail vide Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.231 of 2025 before the concerned Trial Court which has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.09.2025 merely on the ground that the petitioner has violated the condition imposed as above in the earlier bail order passed by this Court in B.A. No.9118 of 2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never misused the bail and all along remain present on each and every date during trial of the case

2025:JHHC:36397

except the aforesaid date on which representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was also rejected and bail bond was cancelled. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case and abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022) subject to the conditions:-

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses. In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Dated: 4^th December, 2025 Sachin/