High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Birendra Kumar Barnwal vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 1 May 2017 · Citation: (2017) 05 JH CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Shankar
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-302>Section 302</a>, <a href=1767-34>Section 34</a> - Punishment for murder - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention · <a href=821>Arms Act, 1959</a>, <a href=821-27>
CASE NUMBER
1961 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

29 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27

of the Arms Act.

3.

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, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. During

the investigation, the petitioner was implicated in this case due to the

reason that his "Hero Honda" Motorcycle was found at a distance of about

100 yards from the place where the dead body of the deceased was

recovered. It is further submitted that on perusal of paragraph no. 30 of the

case diary, it would be evident that the petitioner did not have any talk

either with the co-accused persons or with the deceased before the alleged

occurrence. In fact, the motorcycle of the petitioner got punctured at the

said place and he had gone to call the mechanic. During the said period, the

alleged occurrence might have taken place. Except the fact that the

motorcycle of the petitioner was found near the place of occurrence, the

police has not collected any other admissible evidence against the

petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. Co-accused Sukhdev

Singh Sardar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

07.02.2017 in B.A. No. 9874 of 2016. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.07.2016, therefore, he may be given privilege of regular bail.

4.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner''s prayer for bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is

directed to be released 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 learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in connection with

Nimdih P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 563 of 2016

(S.T. No. 130 of 2016).