Uday Sao @ Udal Sao and Ram Khelawan Sao vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is an application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Manjhiaon P. S. Case No. 64 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 901 of 2010.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that from the F.I.R. , it appears that the Petitioners along with others assaulted the informant by ''lathi'' and ''balua'', but there is no evidence at all as to who assaulted the deceased and the Petitioners are in custody since 6.9.2010, hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that at para 43 of the case diary in which the allegation against the Petitioner No. 1, Uday Sao @ Udal Sao is that he had Balua in his hand.

In that view of the matter, the above-named Petitioner No. 2, Ram Khelawan Sao is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Manjhiaon P. S. Case No. 64 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 901 of 2010, subject to the conditions that one of the bailers would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned (ii) the Petitioner will present before the Court below once in every month on the date fixed, otherwise his bail bond shall stand cancelled.

So far as the Petitioner No. 1, Uday Sao @ Udal Sao is concerned, in view of the allegation that he had Balua in his hand, hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner No. 1, Uday Sao @ Udal Sao on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

However, liberty is given to the Petitioner No. 1, Uday Sao @ Udal Sao, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months.