Rajesh Napit @ Rajesh Bauri v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVNEET KUMAR
Outcome
Bail granted
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 201, 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State : : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, APP ----- 3/25.01.2022 The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter. Heard learned defence counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the State. The petitioner is accused in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.98 of 2021, registered under Sections 302/201/120B of IPC. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused persons has committed murder of the sister of the informant. It has been submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and general in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed. It has further been pointed by the learned defence counsel from the impugned order that the main accused is Anand Mahto, who was running the Maa Tara Restaurant and he used to allure the innocent persons to invest money in his non-existent company and he also induced the deceased and her husband for the investment of rupees sixty thousand for the return of heavy profit and the murder has been committed by the main accused Anand Mahto and this petitioner is just a helper / manager of the said restaurant and he has been implicated in this case without any cogent evidence.
Operative part
It is submitted that no incriminating articles have been recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of this petitioner. It has further been submitted that petitioner is in jail 01.07.2021 and the charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and hence the possibility of tempering with the evidence is very remote. On the other hand the learned APP opposed the contentions raised by the Learned Defence Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the parties and under the facts and circumstances of this case, let this petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.98 of 2021, subject to the conditions that an undertaking supported by affidavit shall be furnished before the concerned court on behalf of the petitioner consisting of the declarations that he will cooperate in the trail and he will appear before the court as and when required, further a copy of his Aadhar Card, residential address and mobile number shall also be submitted to the concerned court and he will not change the same without informing the court and further he will not tamper the evidences in this case, inter alia, either by inducement, promise or any threatening to the witnesses and he will not commit such offence during the pendency of this case along with other conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 201, 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.