CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramu Sao vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 JH CK 0104

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harish Chandra Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 34
CASE NUMBER
B.A No. 1518 of 2012
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

7 paragraphs · 377 words

H.C. Mishra

1.

Both these applications arise out of the same case and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.

2.

The petitioners have been made accused in Jamua P.S Case No. 212 of 2011 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1737 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The case relates to the murder of the son of the informant who was taken away by the accused persons, named in the F.I.R including these petitioners. The F.I.R shows that the informant, who is the father of the deceased, is an eyewitness to the occurrence and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, Ramu Sao to have fired pistol upon the deceased, causing his death. So far as the petitioner, Shyamu Sao is concerned, there is no allegation of assault against him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and other family members of the deceased have not stated about the assault made by the petitioner, Ramu Sao, rather they have stated that they went to the place of occurrence on the next morning. Learned counsel for the petitioners has accordingly prayed for bail.

5.

Learned A.P.P as also learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that there is direct allegation against Ramu Sao to have committed the murder of the deceased.

6.

In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, Ramu Sao on bail, against whom, there is direct allegation of firing pistol upon the deceased, causing his death. Accordingly,his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. So far the petitioner, Shyamu Sao is concerned, I am inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner,Shyamu Sao 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 Sri N.Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist class, Giridih, or his successor, in Jamua P.S Case No. 212 of 2011 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1737 of 2011.