High CourtsSingle Bench

Birsa Bhengra vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 2 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 JH CK 0028

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 201, 302 · Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 — Section 17
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2078 Of 2021
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

17 paragraphs · 401 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No.11 of 2016 (G.R. No. 53 of 2016), S.T. No. 193 of 2017

registered under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 17 of the CLA Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the

co-accused persons has committed the murder of the brother of the informant namely Susharan Horo. It is further submitted that the allegations

against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because the deceased was found

dancing with the petitioner and the co-accused persons, six days prior to the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the petitioner and the co-

accused persons were pressurizing the deceased to join the PLFI Extremist Organization, hence it is suspected that the petitioner might have

committed the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that except suspicion, there is no material to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is

next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.09.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application. It is lastly

submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to

enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, in connection

with Torpa P.S. Case No.11 of 2016 (G.R. No. 53 of 2016), S.T. No. 193 of 2017 with the condition that he will cooperate with the trial of the case.