Niman Baxla vs State of Jharkhand

Jaya Roy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jari P.S. Case No. 03/11 corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2011 registered for offences u/s 302 of I.P.C. and u/s 27 of Arms Act which is presently pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Gumla awaiting final form.

The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Jyoti Kamla Minz has stated in her fardbeyan that her NANAD BHAGINA(as mentioned in the FIR) Suman Baxla aged about 18 years, has been brought up by her from his childhood. On 19.02.2011 at 7.30 P.M he went out of the house. The informant has further stated that at about 8 P.M. she heard the sound of two fires from the eastern side. She came out of the house but did not find anyone therefore she returned and slept. Next day at 6-7 A.M. she came to know that some one had killed Suman Baxla and his dead body was lying in the field of Gabriel Baxla and in the left side of his body there was a big hole and blood was there and two empty cartridges were found near the dead body.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R even there is no suspicion against the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner has implicated in this case only on the basis of the statements of Sovdan Bara recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after fourteen (14) days of the alleged occurrence and no explanation for delay has been mentioned. Though Sovdan Bara is the maternal uncle of the deceased thus, his silence for fourteen days create serious doubt.

It is also submitted that the petitioner is Deputy Commandant in(Jaya Roy, J) B.S.F. and on the alleged date of occurrence he was on the duty at Raipur, Chattishgarh. In support of his contention he has annexed the photo copy of the certificate and Duty chart certified by the D.I.G., B.S.F and few letters as annexure-2 series in this application. Therefore, it proves that the petitioner was on the duty on the alleged date of the occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in this case by his brother-in-law as because he refused to fulfill the demand of money by him. The victim is the son of the petitioner.

The counsel appearing for the State has submitted that it has come in the investigation that the witnesses have stated that Sobdan Bara has disclosed them the name of the petitioner who has committed the offence much before the recoding of his statements u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also come that the place of occurrence is not far from the posting place of the petitioner. It is also sub mitted that the sufficient materials have come in the investigation regarding the involvement of the petitioner in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

From the impugned order, I find that the deceased was son of the petitioner as the witness Sonainy Minz (mother of the deceased) has stated before the Police that in the year 1987-88, she had love affairs with Niman Baxla (petitioner) and one child Suman Baxla (the deceased) was born from the said affair, but the petitioner performed another marriage out side the Village. A village meeting had taken place and the petitioner was entrusted the responsibility of Soniany Minz but the petitioner left the village, then her brother gave shelter and used to take care of the said child. After Schooling, Suman Baxla (the deceased) had applied for the appointment in Police and became successful. This creates trouble for the petitioner.

In my opinion, when the sufficient materials have come against the petitioner in the investigation and the distance of the alleged place of occurrence is not far away from the posting place of the petitioner, the plea of aliby cannot be considered at this stage. After considering the submission made by both the parties and also considering the materials which have come in the investigation as mentioned in the impugned order in detail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.