Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1342 (JHR)

Santosh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2025-05-08

AMBUJ NATH, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : I.A. (Cr.) No. 5175 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1246 of 2024, I.A. (Cr.) No. 4787 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1347 of 2024, I.A. (Cr.) No. 4711 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1348 of 2024, I.A. (Cr.) No. 4713 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1407 of 2024 and I.A. (Cr.) No. 4712 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1436 of 2024. 2. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1246 of 2024 and Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants in the rest of the appeals and opposed by Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P., Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P., Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 3. In all these interlocutory applications the appellants have prayed for grant of bail to them during the pendency of these appeals. 4. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 148, 323/149, 341/149, 342/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/s 302/149 of the IPC. 5. It has been alleged that while the informant along with her son were returning to her village from Hazaribag they were surrounded by the accused persons who were variously armed and the son of the informant was assaulted which resulted in his death. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1246 of 2024 that the appellants are not named in the First Information Report but subsequently the informant in her examination as P.W.7 has developed the story and has implicated the appellants. So far as the rest appellants are concerned, Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, learned counsel submits that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has further been submitted that the only eyewitness to the occurrence is P.W.7 who is an eighty years old lady and the incident having taken place at about 6:30 P.M. it would be difficult for the informant to have identified each and every appellant by specifying also the arms they were having. It has further been submitted that the only eyewitness to the occurrence is P.W.7 who is an eighty years old lady and the incident having taken place at about 6:30 P.M. it would be difficult for the informant to have identified each and every appellant by specifying also the arms they were having. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the identification of the appellants itself is doubtful and in fact the main allegation of firing at the deceased have been leveled against one Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav. 7. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants and has submitted that seventeen injuries were found on the person of the deceased and P.W.7 has categorized each of the appellants along with the arms they were holding and the assault they had committed. Learned counsel submits that the prayer for bail of Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav has already been rejected earlier. It has been submitted that though Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav has been attributed to have fired at the deceased but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the other appellants had actively participated and committed a concerted assault upon the deceased which is borne out from the postmortem report as seventeen injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 8. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses more particularly that of P.W.7 that she seems to have named all the appellants of having participated in the assault. The incident admittedly had taken place at 6:30 P.M. and P.W.7 is an eighty years old lady and the exaggeration in her evidence can be gauged from the fact that though the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1246 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1436 of 2024 were not named in the First Information Report but subsequently in her evidence she has included them as the assailants. Moreover, it appears that the deceased had sustained a firearm injury which can in view of the evidence of P.W.7 straightaway attributed to Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to admit the appellants on bail. 9. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to admit the appellants on bail. 9. Accordingly, all the appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2022 amalgamated with Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2021, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021. 10. All these Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.