Xavier Barla Alias Xavier Tete Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.224 of 2025

Xavier Barla @ Xavier Tete, aged 38 years, S/o Lalit Barla @ Lalit Tete, R/o Village – Talmanga, P.O. + P.S. – Balbwa, District – Simdega. … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P.

¶8

Order No.04/Dated- 14.02.2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.60 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 173 of 2009 (S.T. No.80 of 2023) registered for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Simdega.

¶11

3. As per F.I.R., informant (sister of victim) has alleged that on 13.06.2009, when informant called home telephonically, informant came to know that on 08.06.2009 at around 5:00 P.M., her cousin brother (Mausera Bhai) visited informant’s house with three unknown persons. After having a meal and consuming alcohol, informant’s cousin left with two of his friends on a motorcycle towards Farsa Bera, while informant’s mother and two brothers had gone to attend a funeral. At around 8:00 P.M., one of the unknown friends of her cousin allegedly committed rape upon informant’s blind sister, who was alone in the house. On hearing the victim’s screams, villagers assembled and caught the accused, who identified himself as Xavier Barla (petitioner) a Class X student. A village meeting (Panchayat) was convened in the presence of the accused’s parents, where a fine of Rs. 8,000/- was imposed, out of which Rs. 2,000 /- was deposited with the Panch members.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is second regular bail application of the petitioner and the petitioner is

¶13

languishing in Judicial Custody since 17.06.2023. It is further submitted that at present altogether six witnesses have been examined out of eight chargesheeted witnesses and last witness was examined on 21.03.2024 and the learned Trial Court has also submitted that the progress report of the trial dated 24.01.2025 without any change in the position of trial. The trial is going on in a slow motion although victim lady, informant and other witnesses have been turned hostile by the prosecution. The petitioner is under incarceration without any fault and undertakes to appear before the concerned Trial Court on each date and cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶14

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that still material witnesses have to be examined in this case and the trial is likely to be concluded within three months as reported by the concerned Trial Court. The petitioner is charged for serious and heinous offence like rape, therefore, petitioner does not deserve bail and his prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶15

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and period of custody of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that trial is going on in a slow motion and the petitioner is in custody since long period, the victim has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.60 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 173 of 2009 (S.T. No.80 of 2023) subject to the conditions:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶20

Sachin

Xavier Barla Alias Xavier Tete v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xavier Barla Alias Xavier Tete v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quresha Begum Alias Guresha Begum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Morha Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Some Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand