Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Turi @ Rajesh Dumdum vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. A. (DB) No. 1302 of 2024
--------
Rajesh Turi @ Rajesh Dumdum, aged about 32 years, Son of Alvish Dungdung, Resident of Village-Kurmidih, Station Road, P.S.-Balidih, P.O.-Radhanagar, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) .. ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
--------
th Order No. 07/ Dated: 25 July, 2025 I.A. No. 5184 of 2025 Heard Mr. Naveek Kr. Jaiswal, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offences under Section 364/34 and 302/34 of IPC.
4. It has been alleged that the son of the informant had gone out of the house on 13.10.2022 by saying that he is going to the house of the appellant but when he did not return, a search was made and it came to light that there was scuffle between the son of the informant and others who have committed the murder of her son and his body has been hidden somewhere. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been delay of two months in lodging the First Information Report. It has been submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of purported confessional statement leading to recovery of keys of the scooty inside the well the appellant has been convicted. Learned sr. counsel adds that the main allegation is against co-convict Motu Lugun on whose confession, the skeleton of the son of the informant was recovered. It has been submitted that the scooty of the deceased was disposed off in a pond and the same has come in the confessional statement of co-convict Motu Lugun and not the present appellant. It has been submitted that even the identification of the keys was not procedurally correct as the keys were not mixed with the similar type of keys in the process of identification. Learned sr. counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 28.01.2023.
5. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for the bail of the appellant and has referred to the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 while submitting that P.W.-2 has categorically stated that there was scuffle between the convicts and the deceased and he had seen the deceased being taken away by the said persons. It has been submitted that the commission of the murder and the deceased having been last seen with the appellant and the other co-convict is in close proximity to each other and therefore the role of the appellant in committing the murder of the son of the informant is clearly ascertained.
6. It appears from the written report submitted by the mother of the deceased that her son had gone outside on his scooty to the house of the appellant and subsequently he did not return. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, it clearly transpires that both the convicts were with the deceased and there was scuffle after which the deceased was taken away by both the convicts somewhere and subsequently on the next day she came to know that the son of the informant has been murdered. The evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 emanates strong circumstances against the appellant in committing the murder of the son of the informant and the recovery of the keys from the well on the pointing out by the appellant is an added feature to the case of the prosecution.
7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail and his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
8. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Basant/Arpit 2 Cr. A. (D.B.) No. 1302 of 2024