Jharkhand High Court
Uday Singh Choudhary Alias Udai Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2014
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P. P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2819 of 2014
-----
Uday Singh Choudhary @ Udai Singh Choudhary.... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... ..... .... .... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
-----
02/ 10.04.2014The present application is filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Section 304(B) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted only under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Putki P.S.Case No.04 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.68 of 2014, which is now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that no case under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present petitioner and only Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been mentioned at the time of filing of charge sheet. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted, and therefore, there is no possibility of tempering with the evidences. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring Paragraphs -10, 11, 12, 13, 58 and 59 of the case diary, has submitted that some of the independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution version and have stated that the deceased-lady insisted upon the present petitioner for accompanying him at Jamshedpur whereas the present petitioner insisted that since he is reporting to a new job at Jamshedpur and after making arrangement of a new house, he will call the deceased-lady at Jamshedpur. It is submitted that the similar version is given by almost all the independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is law abiding citizen and therefore has voluntarily surrendered on 20.01.2014. It is also submitted that the petitioner is residing at Dhanbad having roots at Dhanbad and is also having the responsibility towards his family as well as his job. Moreover, the petitioner is also having the responsibility to look after and maintaining his minor child as well as widow mother. Therefore, the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of accusation, there are specific allegations against the present petitioner and prima facie the ingredients of Section 304(B) I.P.C. as well as Section 306 I.P.C. are attracted, and therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of accusation, the present petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed under Section 306 of the I.P.C., therefore, there is prima facie case against the present petitioner, and hence, the present petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also having regard to the nature and gravity of accusation in the light of the statements made by some of the independent witnesses in Paragraphs
-10, 11 and 58 of the case diary, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner, who is having roots in Dhanbad and who is also having responsibility towards his family and job deserves to be considered for grant of bail. It further appears that the father of the present petitioner is also died and he is also having the responsibility to look after widow mother as well as to maintain his minor child aged about two years. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely Uday Singh Choudhary @ Udai Singh Choudhary is directed to be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Putki P.S.Case No.04 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.68 of 2014, subject to the following conditions :
1. that applicant shall abide by the conditions of the bond executed under chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
2. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
3. that applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
4. that applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and
5. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) SI/