Baiju Kumar Soni vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Kumardungi P.S. Case no. 03 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 99 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

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. Initially, an U.D. Case was registered with regard to the death of the deceased on 14.11.2014 in which the husband of the deceased had stated that the deceased died due to accidental burn injury. However during the investigation, it was found that the cause of death of the deceased was "shock and asphyxia due to throttling" and thereafter on the direction of Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Jagannathpur, District- West Singhbhum, the present F.I.R. was lodged as late as on 14.03.2016. The petitioner has been implicated mainly on the basis of the statement of witness Bheshdhari Pat Pingua, who claimed himself to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The petitioner was having previous enmity with the said witness Bheshdhari Pat Pingua and therefore, his statement is not reliable. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.10.2016 and therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

Learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner''s prayer for bail submits that one Bheshdhari Pat Pingua is the eye-witness to the occurrence, who has clearly stated that the petitioner along with two other co-accused persons committed murder of the deceased in a planned manner and therefore, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is, hereby, rejected.