Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ghanshyam Dandapat vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2022

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 121 of 2020
Ghanshyam Dandapat                           ...     Appellant
                          Versus
State of Jharkhand                    ...                 Respondent
                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : None

---

Order No. 06                                 Dated 05th April, 2022

I.A. No. 2115 of 2021

Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the State.

The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected by this Court in I.A. No. 3210 of 2020 vide order dated 07.09.2020.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the evidence of P.W. 17 that on the date of the incident the appellant had taken his wife to the Bahragora Hospital for treatment and P.W. 17 was also present, but subsequently in the evening, the incident is said to have occurred. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since 13.09.2017. It has also been submitted that most of the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution including the minor son of the deceased who has been examined as P.W. 15.

It appears that P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The minor son of the deceased who has been examined as P.W. 15 also did not support the case of the prosecution. However, the postmortem report reveals that one injury was found on the mid-chest muscle which was caused by hard and blunt substance and it was opined that the pattern of burn injury were not accidental in nature.

In view of the findings of the postmortem report and the medical 2. evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as P.W. 18, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected.

I.A. No. 2115 of 2021 stands rejected.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (RAJESH KUMAR, J.) MK