Ajay Bhan Singh, S/o Late Vikramaditya Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.T. No. 89 of 2015, arising out of Mango (M.G.M.) P.S. Case No. 553 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 3426 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on suspicion and the police has not collected any admissible evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.10.2014 and, therefore, his prayer for bail may be considered sympathetically.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner''s prayer for bail submits that during the investigation, one mobile phone was recovered from the place of occurrence which did not belong to the deceased. However, on further investigation, it revealed that the said mobile phone was in the name of one Bablu Soren, the cousin of the petitioner and the said Bablu Soren in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C . stated that though the said mobile was in his name, but it was being used by the petitioner. In view of the said fact, the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged occurrence is apparent and, therefore, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, hence, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.