Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 100 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-02-08

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is named in the FIR as one of the accused in Sonari P.S. Case No. 69 of 2003 registered under Sections 302 and 34, IPC. 3. From the FIR, it appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he after dragging out Nawal Kishore Singh, a practicing Advocate of Jamshedpur from his house, fired two shots resulting into the death of the said lawyer. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has been declared as juvenile and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. From the impugned order, dated 29.01.2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, it appears that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of Justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Satish and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 2003 (11) AIC Raj HC 860, (Annexure-3) has submitted that since there is no mention as to how the release of the petitioner on ball would defeat the ends of Justice and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. As it appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Judge that he has considered the fact as to whether the release of the petitioner was likely to bring the petitioner in association with known criminals and that it would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of Justice and then has refused the prayer for bail. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the release of the petitioner would certainly expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release is likely to bring the petitioner in association with known criminals, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was correct in rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Revision Application is dismissed.