Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 526 (JHR)

Rohit Ram @ Rohit Kumar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Since in both these applications the prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail and the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 3. Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kowali P.S. Case No. 08 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1060 of 2015 (S.T. No. 399 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the nephew, niece and in-laws of the deceased against whom the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has been stated that some of the nephews have been granted anticipatory bail in ABA No. 3116 of 2015. Learned counsel further submits that the chargesheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of purported dying declaration given by the deceased. 5. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that specific allegation has been levelled against Sadan Ram, Mamta Devi and Kiran Devi as much prior to the incident an informatory petition as well as a complaint case was lodged by the deceased specifically attributing the role of torture and her apprehension against these accused persons. It has been stated that in the supervision note the dying declaration was found to be false as the deceased had remained unconscious after the incident for a period of three days pursuant to which she succumbed to her burn injuries. 6. It appears from perusal of the case diary that allegations against the petitioners seem to be general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners in A.B.A No. 4794 of 2016 are the nephew, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased whereas the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 4331 of 2016 are the niece of the deceased. 7. 6. It appears from perusal of the case diary that allegations against the petitioners seem to be general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners in A.B.A No. 4794 of 2016 are the nephew, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased whereas the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 4331 of 2016 are the niece of the deceased. 7. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against two of the accused who are nephew have been granted anticipatory bail and considering the similarity of allegation levelled against the persons who have been granted anticipatory bail when compared to those of the petitioners, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Kowali P.S. Case No. 08 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1060 of 2015 (S.T. No. 399 of 2015) subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Applications allowed.