Ranjit Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defects being defect nos.8, 9(i) & 9(ii) in the bail application as pointed out by

the stamp reporter dated 06.07.2020 but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defect after the lockdown period is over and the bail

application may be heard as it is a regular bail it is a regular bail in which petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2019.

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merit but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defects within 30

days after the lockdown period is over.

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the lockdown period is over so as to remove the defects. Heard,

learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi and learned counsel for the State, Mr. V.V. Pradhan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No.08 of 2019, corresponding to G.R.

No.406 of 2019, corresponding to S.T. No. 436 of 2019, for the offence registered under Section 363 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that victim- Anjali Hansda being a major lady had affair with the petitioner and thereafter she died, an

U.D. Case No.04 of 2019 has been filed in West Bengal at Barabani. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in

custody since 19.02.2019, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that a detail counter affidavit is

necessary to be filed in this case on the following points:-

(a) That victim- Talo Hansda daughter of the informant alleged to be age of 14 years is the same lady who has been shown as Anjali Hansda for

which U.D.

Case No.04 of 2019 at Barabani, West Bengal, has been instituted.

(b) Postmortem report of the deceased is necessary to be perused by this Court. Learned State counsel has subsequently prayed that he will discuss

the issue with the Superintendent of Police, Giridih regarding submission of charge sheet under Sections 304 and 363 IPC, as such, sometime may be

granted. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record, it appears that counter-affidavit is necessary to be

filed in this case, as such, the learned counsel for the State is directed to file a detail counter affidavit with regard to the identity of the victim, death of

the victim and submission of the charge sheet under Sections 363 and 304 IPC within a period of four weeks.

Put up this case after four weeks along with counter-affidavit.