Subham Bodra @ Budhram Bodra vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P.

for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video

Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the

Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, in connection with Chota Nagra Police Station Case No.02 of 2016 (G.R. No.17 of 2016) corresponding

to Sessions Trial No.74 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I at Chaibasa.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected. Petitioner renews his prayer for bail on the ground that the person, who has been named in the

First Information Report has been acquitted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is allegation against him of committing murder. Considering

the evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and

his case stands on better footing than that of the co-accused, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but, cannot dispute that the co-accused, who has been named in

the First Information Report, has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

Considering the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner, namely, Subham Bodra @ Budhram Bodra is

directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I at Chaibasa in connection with Chota Nagra Police Station Case No.02 of 2016 (G.R. No.17 of

2016) corresponding to Sessions Trial No.74 of 2018, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and

further the petitioner will appear and mark his attendance before the Trial Court once a month, failing which the Trial Court will take all coercive steps

for his re-arrest.

Further, I also direct the Jail Authority that before releasing the petitioner from jail, the Jail Authority should get the petitioner tested for COVID-19. If

the report is positive, then the District Administration will immediately take steps to isolate the petitioner and get him treated in the COVID Centre by

following all the protocols. This direction is given in the larger public interest and it should not be construed as a condition of bail.