Rajkumar Yadav @ Manjit Jee vs The State of Jharkhand

H.C. Mishra

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 129 of 2011.

The case relates to abduction for ransom of two employees of Abhijit Group of Companies and from the F.I.R., it appears that rupees one crore was demanded in ransom for releasing the said employees. It also appears that subsequently, both persons were murdered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that there is a confessional statement of this petitioner, but the said confessional statement has been taken after coercion by the police. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that on the basis of confessional statement of this petitioner, dead bodies of both the victims and the motorcycle of the victim were recovered. It also appears that after recording the confessional statement of this petitioner, when the police was going to recover the dead bodies, there was heavy exchange of fire between the extremists group and police party, in which, there was causality in both sides.

In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Rajkumar Yadav @ Manjit Jee, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.