Jharkhand High Court
William Marandi @ Nepolean @ William ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2011
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 7998 of 2010
William Marandi @ Nepolean @ Willium Marandi... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
06/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the CLA Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 50 to 60 persons have been alleged to have taken the husband of the informant to a place where he was done to death and for that a case was registered. In course of the investigation, one co-accused, namely, Shankar Singh, when was arrested, he confessed his guilt and also disclosed about the participation of this petitioner in the alleged offence and on that basis when this petitioner was arrested, he is said to have also confessed his guilt but save and except the confession made by this petitioner or by the other co-accused, nothing is there, showing involvement of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been in custody in connection with this case since 2004 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, which would be evident from the report/status called for by this Court.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 2003 , corresponding to G.R. No.67 of 2003 (S.T. No.211 of 2008).
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8002 of 2010 Mangal Singh ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vandana Singh , Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 376/511/323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the period of custody, which is about seven months, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 207 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.1235 of 2010.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8036 of 2010 Chhotu Hembram ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and taking into consideration the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he committed rape upon the girl, aged about 15 years and that there is no reason as to why the petitioner would be falsely implicated in a case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence his prayer for bail is hereby rejected at this stage.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8064 of 2010 Yashoda Devi ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when Kalawati Devi and her three children were found drowned in a well, a case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner and one Santosh Rabidas wherein suspicion was raised against them, as Santosh Rabidas-the husband of the deceased, had illicit relation with this petitioner but the said case was lodged on suspicion only and that subsequently, in course of the investigation, even the informant and other witnesses have stated that the deceased had committed suicide.
However, this fact was refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the State wherein he indicated that had it been a case of suicide, there would not have been a big stone tied around the neck of the deceased-Kalawat Devi and that creates a strong suspicion against this petitioner, particularly when there is allegation that this petitioner had illicit relation with the husband of the deceased.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence her prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8076 of 2010 Lakhi Ram Das ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
05/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when a house dacoity was committed, a case was registered against unknown. Subsequently, certain common articles are said to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner, which were never put on TIP and that the petitioner has been identified during TIP but it is the case of single identification and, therefore, keeping in view the period of custody, which is more than one year , the petitioner be admitted to bail.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has not only been identified by the witness but looted articles had also been been recovered from the house of the petitioner and above all, the petitioner, as per the report called for by this Court, is accused in as many as in one dozen cases.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8112 of 2010 Saddam Ansari ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- the husband of the deceased, has been made accused along with other family members for an offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code but from the materials collected during investigation, it would appear that the deceased was carrying pregnancy and when she had had pain in the abdomen, she was removed by the petitioner and other family members to the Hospital where she died and, therefore, the Doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, but in view of the aforesaid fact, it can be said that the petitioner did not do anything, as result of which, she died and that most of the independent witnesses have stated that there had not been any demand of dowry and the deceased was not being subjected to cruelty.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 35 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.822 of 2010.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8156 of 2010 Sohrai Oraon ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Ram, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
03/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is a third attempt for grant of bail.
Earlier when the prayer was refused vide order dated 18.12.2009, a direction was given by this Court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within six months. When during that period, trial did not get concluded, this bail application has been filed for grant of bail.
But from the report called for by this Court, it does appear that the case is fixed for argument and as such, it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
Before parting with this order, it be recorded that if the case is pending before any Fast Track Court, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi would recall the case and would hear himself or may transfer it to any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8158 of 2010 Rabindra Modi @ Ravindar Modi ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. I. Sinha , Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner, the husband of the deceased and also other accused persons have been alleged to have committed offence of dowry death, but there has been no allegation of demand of dowry connected with marriage rather demand is with respect to purchase of a piece of land and, therefore, it would not come within the definition of the dowry and that it is never the case of dowry death rather it is the case of suicide, which would be apparent from the fact that the door was found closed from inside which was broke open and considering this fact, other accused persons have even granted anticipatory bail.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 123 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.1865 of 2010.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8162 of 2010 Subedar Yadav ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
04/03.05.2011: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 147/ 148/149/307/124(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 (i) (ii) of the CLA Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after a shoot out took place in between the police parties and the miscreants, when the miscreants were retreating, the police chased them and succeeded in apprehending two persons including one Jethan Paswan, who were found to be armed with firearms and that Jethan Paswan disclosed in his confession made before the police that this petitioner had also participated in the shoot out, but save and except the confession made by the co-accused, nothing is there, showing involvement of the petitioner and that Jethan Paswan has been admitted to bail by this Court vide B.A. No.3941 of 2009 and, therefore, the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.1177 of 2008.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/