Ajit Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.520 of 2025

Ajit Hembrom, Aged about 32 years, Son of Sanjhala Hembram, Resident of Village Harrakha, P.O. – Lalmatiya, P.S. Lalmatiya, Dist. – Godda, Jharkhand. … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, 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 Lalmatiya P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 (S.T. No.16 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Godda.

¶11

3. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.04.2023 at about 04:00 p.m. informant’s son went to Mela at Dahua wherein informant’s son-in-law met with her son but informant’s son did not return. Upon receiving information, she went there and found that her son had received gunshot injury by some unknown miscreants and thereafter, doctor declared him dead.

¶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 only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.1632 of 2024 was rejected on merits by this Court and petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail again. It is further submitted that there is no material in the entire case diary showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder. The alleged recovery of fire arm is a concocted story. Charge has been framed on 18.02.2024. Out of 9 charge-sheeted witnesses, five witnesses have been examined in this case in which P.W.2 to P.W.5 have been declared hostile and P.W.1 is the daughter of

¶13

the deceased who has not alleged anything wrong against the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 10.08.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to 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 vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that from the report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the trial is likely to be concluded within a short span of time. In this view of the matter, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Sachin

Ajit Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Hembrom 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

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

Some Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Shoaib Akhtar Alias Md. S. Akhtar Alias Md. Soaib Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand