Horil Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Horil Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2017

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              B. A. No. 478 of 2017

            Horil Pandit @ Sudhir Pandit           ...      ...     Petitioner
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                 ...      ...     Opp. Party
                                     ---
            CORAM         : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                     ---
            For the Petitioner       : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
            For the Opp. Party       : A.P.P.

06/28.02.2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364/120-B/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Even if the content of the fardbeyan of the informant is taken to be true, it can be said to be a case of last seen. However, the story narrated in the fardbeyan of the informant is completely false and the petitioner did not abduct the deceased and took her out of the village on the alleged "Bolero" vehicle, as has been alleged by the informant. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Except the self-confession of the petitioner made before the police, no cogent material has been collected to connect him with the alleged offence. As per the alleged self-confession of the petitioner, the manner of committing the alleged murder of the deceased is by strangulation but the postmortem-report clearly shows that the death of the deceased occurred due to "hemorrhage and shock due to accident". None of the injuries mentioned in the said postmortem-report corroborates the fact that the deceased was strangulated. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.09.2016 and, therefore, he may be granted the privilege of regular bail.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 learned S.D.J.M., Giridih in connection with Saria P.S. Case No.134 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.2396 of 2016.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) R.P./

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court