Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 748 (JHR)

Binod Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-17

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2008
JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner in an accused in Sakchi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2007 registered under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal-Code. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when Ashish Dey was murdered by some unknown persons, a case was registered against unknown and since the case was of blind murder, the police started investigating the case on different theories. First, it raised suspicion against the members of an organization called 'MMG' as the deceased had received call whereby the members attached with the said organization had asked for ransom. Simultaneously, it raised suspicion against Amlesh Kumar and Akhilesh Singh said to be renowned criminal of Jamshedpur indulging themselves in all sorts of criminal activities including commission of an offence of extortion and murder as Amlesh Kumar had grievance against the deceased as the deceased being owner of a Hotel "Smita" had removed one of his employees, namely, Rupesh Singh, who has close association with Amlesh Kumar. At the same time, it raised suspicion against one Jitendra Singh @ Pappu Don, who is said to have confessed that he got the deceased murdered but subsequently, when he underwent Polygraphic test and Brain Mapping Test, it transpired that he, in order to mislead the investigating agency, had falsely confessed his guilt at the instance of one Police Officer. Lastly, suspicion was raised against this petitioner on the premise that there had been business rivalry on account of having a Hotel named as "City Inn" whereas the deceased was the owner of a Hotel named as "Smita". That apart, it is also said that the petitioner wanted to acquire/purchase valuable lands situated at Sakchi but the deceased always proved to be hurdled as most of the resident of Sakchi intending to sell their lands used to consult the deceased who would discourage them to sell the land to the petitioner but this is not the true state of affairs and moreover, the prosecution has not come forward with any specific instance of the land dealings under which the petitioner intended to purchase certain piece of land which was frustrated by the deceased, rather specific instance is against one Bablu Ghosh, who purchased a piece of valuable land which the deceased also wanted to purchase. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that there has been no material showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, still the petitioner was charge sheeted only on the basis of suspicion and that too upon incomplete investigation, as after submission of the charge sheet, the prosecution looked for further evidence and in that pursuit, the prosecution agency made this petitioner to undergo Polygraphic Test, Brain Mapping Test and also Marco Analysis Test but nothing came out showing culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offence and hence, the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Indrajit Sinha appearing for the State, specially appointed by the State Government and also leaned counsel appearing for the informant Sri Rajiv Ranjan submitted that there are strong circumstances against the petitioner showing his hand in the alleged murder. In this regard, it was submitted that the petitioner is said to have amassed huge property by indulging himself in all sorts of illegal activities and that the petitioner wanted to acquire/purchase valuable land at Sakchi area but his effort was being frustrated by the deceased and that apart, there was business rivalry in between the deceased and the petitioner as the deceased was also having Hotel named as "Smita" and the petitioner was also having Hotel named as "City Inn" and therefore, in order to have easy access in the matter of acquiring land, the deceased was done to death. 6. Learned Counsel also submitted that this petitioner has close association with other accused, Amlesh Kumar and Akhilesh Singh and was fully aware of the fact that some shooters have been called in from outside for committing murder, who even visited the Hotel of the petitioner which would be evident from the statement made by the witnesses as recorded in paragraphs 201 and 202 of the case diary and the fact that the petitioner was knowing that the deceased would be killed gets confirmed from the result of Narco Test and Brain Mapping Test and under that situation, the petitioner can easily be held guilty for an offence under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 7. However, it was replied by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that result of Narco Test and other circumstances which were put forth on behalf of the other side never goes to show that the petitioner indulged himself in any manner with the commission of the murder of the deceased rather the petitioner is said to have had knowledge of the crime but that fact coming through the result of the Narco Test does not have any evidentiary value and, in any event of the matter, the petitioner, in absence of any material showing act of abetment, cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sakchi P.S. case No. 240 of 2007 (G.R. No. 2778 of 2007).