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
8 paragraphs · 356 wordsH.C. Mishra
Both these applications arise out of the same case and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners have been made accused in Gumla P.S. Case No. 99 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 305 of 2012, for the offence under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The dead body of an unknown person was recovered and the case was instituted against unknown.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. So far as the petitioner, Sunita Devi is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the confessional statement of the co-accused, it has come that she was only a conspirator and she was not present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail.
From the impugned order it is apparent that on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons including the petitioner Trilok Nath Dubey the weapon of offence was recovered from a pond which was taken out of the pond by this petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Trilok Nath Dubey, is hereby rejected.
So far as the petitioner Sunita Devi is concerned, it is apparent from the impugned order also that she is only involved in the conspiracy of the murder of the deceased. In the facts of this case. I am inclined to release this petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Sunita Devi, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Gumla, in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 99 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 305 of 2012.