Dismissed¶16

Govinda Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2025A.B.A./1495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A.B.A. No. 1495 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; anticipatory bail rejected 05.03.2025; Kunda P.S. Case No.31 of 2024; Sections 302/34 IPC; alleged murder of Sarita Devi; Deoghar; common intention; custodial interrogation required; no specific overt act attributed; claim of accidental fall into well; F.I.R. allegation of assault and phone call to informant; petitioners Govinda Rana, Bablu Rana, Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana.

What did the court decide?

The Court took into account the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of the deceased in further of their common intention. ¶16

Govinda Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, should be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Court's answer

The Court took into account the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of the deceased in further of their common intention.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account the requirement of the petitioners' custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case.

¶16

Key takeaways

On these considerations, the Court was not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — prayer rejected. Petitioners Govinda Rana, Bablu Rana and Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, apprehending arrest in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 registered for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, moved the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (A.B.A. No. 1495 of 2025). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations were false, that no specific overt act or role had been attributed to each petitioner in the murder of Sarita Devi, that the petitioners had no criminal antecedent, and that the deceased accidentally fell down inside a well and died. The Additional P.P. opposed, submitting that the F.I.R. itself contained direct and specific allegations of assaulting the deceased, that the deceased had intimated the assault over phone to the informant and expressed apprehension that the petitioners would murder her that night, and that custodial interrogation was required during investigation. Considering the serious nature of the allegation of commission of murder in further of common intention and the requirement of custodial interrogation, Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., declined to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer (Order No.02 dated 05.03.2025).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1495 of 2025

¶2

Govinda Rana, aged about 25 years, Son of Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, Resident of Villge –Pahridih, P.O. –Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶3

Bablu Rana, aged about 22 years, Son of Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, Resident of Village –Pahridih, P.O. –Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶4

Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Meghu Rana, Resident of Village –Pahridih, P.O.Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶5

… Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 05.03.2025

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of Sarita Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and no specific overt act or role of each of the petitioners has been attributed in the murder of the deceased. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-08 of the instant anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the deceased accidently fell down inside the well and died. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that in the F.I.R.

¶15

itself, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the deceased and the deceased has intimated the same over phone to the informant and the deceased has also intimated the informant that that the petitioners have overheard the communication of information about assault upon her by them to the informant and the deceased expressed her apprehension that petitioners will murder her in that fateful night itself. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of the deceased in further of their common intention and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Sonu/Gunjan-

Govinda Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda Rana 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

Sanjay Yadav Alias Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajeet Kumar Saw Alias Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nogan Gorai Alias Nagen Chandra Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prameshwar Mahto Alias Parmeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deep Chand Lamba Vs State of Jharkhand