Jharkhand High Court
Binod Mahto Alias Vinod Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2014
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P.Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10185 of 2013
Binod Mahto @ Vinod Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Kashyap, Lina Shakti, Advocates.
For the Opp. Party : A.P.P.
- --
02/02.01.2014The present bail application is filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 69 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1470 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and perused the F.I.R. and other papers annexed to the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is in jail custody since 8.8.2013, has not committed offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, he has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Sujit Verma. It is further submitted that such confessional statement has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and therefore, now there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, if the applicant is released on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant shall abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that as per paragraph 43 of the case diary, wherein it has been mentioned the call details of the wife of the deceased and other accused persons which is suggestive of the fact that there was illicit relationship between the present petitioner and the wife of the deceased and, therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been disclosed by co-accused in his confessional statement and there is no other independent witnesses who have described the role of the present petitioner in the commission of the offence. Under the circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner, Binod Mahto @ Vinod Mahto is directed to be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 69 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1470 of 2012, 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 mark his presence before the concerned police station in any day of the first week of every month till the commencement of trial.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) Anu/-