Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Kolh Alias Butari Kolh And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2014
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 1836 of 2014
1.Mahendra Kolh@Butari Kolh
2.Raju Kolh . .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand . .... Opposite Party.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. Bhatt
For the Petitioner s : Mr.Ram Lakhan Yadav Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
02/9.4.2014 Present application is filed under sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with Giridih(M) P.S. Case No. 304 of 2012 corresponding to G.R No. 1781 of 2012,S.T. No. No.135 of 2013 for the alleged offence registered under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge,III Giridih .
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the counter affidavit and other materials placed on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime merely on suspicion,though they have not committed any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the alleged crime on account of previous enmity between the deceased and the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the present petitioners, except confessional statement made by the coaccused and there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioners, as stated in paragraph 16 of the bail application and they are in custody since November, 2013 and they are ready and willing to abide the conditions that may be imposed by this court. It is further submitted that similarly situated coaccused Gobardhan Kolh has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6245 of 2013 on 2.9.2013, copy of which has been annexed with this bail application and the case of the present petitioners stands on similar footing to that of the co accused person and therefore, petitioners may be granted regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. for the State while opposing the bail submitted by referring some of the paragraphs of the counter affidavit that though the petitioners are involved in a case punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but, from paragraphs 46 and 53 of the case diary prama facie it appears that the name of the petitioners came in the light on the basis of the statements of the coaccused However, looking to the seriousness of the charge and gravity of the offence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Considerings the aforesaid rival submissions and more particularly in view of the fact that similarly situated coaccused Gobardhan Kolh has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6245 of 2013 on 2.9.2013 and the case of the present petitioners stands on similar footing to that of the coaccused person and therefore on the ground of parity, the bail application of the present petitioners deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the petitioners, namely Mahendra Kolh @ Butari Kolh and Raju Kolh are directed to be released on bail on executing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge,III Giridih subject to the following conditions:
1. that applicants shall abide by the conditions of the bond executed under chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. that applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
3. that applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused
4. that applicants 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.
5. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(P.P. Bhatt, J) SD