Uday Dubey vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

This is an application for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier after hearing both the parties case diary was called for. As per the F.I.R. the dead body of the victim was found and the F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons. Subsequently witnesses including the father of the deceased raised suspicion and wrote a letter which is at Para 37 of the case diary that he has got suspicion upon Uday Dubey and his brothers except that there is no evidence against the Petitioner. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that all are "Gotia" of the deceased and only suspicion has been raised against the Petitioner and he is languishing in custody and as such he may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Counsel for the Informant as well as learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that earlier also one of the son of the informant was done to death due to land dispute at the instance of this Petitioner for which Rehla P.S. Case No. 10 of 2006 was registered for the death of his son Dhananjay Kumar Dubey on 30.03.2006 and subsequently his second son has also been done to death for which Garhwa P.S. Case No. 110 of 2010 was registered. He has submitted that the occurrence are due to the land dispute and hence the release of the Petitioner will be harmful for his life.

In the facts and circumstance of the case since it appears from the case diary that there is no evidence that the Petitioner is directly involved in the murder of the deceased and the witnesses are family members of the deceased who have raised suspicion against the Petitioner in that view of the matter, the Petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/ (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 110 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 399 of 2010 subject to the conditions that the bailors must be local residents having property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the Petitioner will appear before the trial court once in every month on the date fixed for trial and he in no way will try to give any threat to the informant otherwise his bail bond will be cancelled.