Akash Kumar @ Akash Kunjilwar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1720 Jhar

                                  -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 633 of 2020

     Akash Kumar @ Akash Kunjilwar               ....    Petitioner

                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand
                                            ......         Opp. Party
                          --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Petitioner :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State :Mr. V.K. Vashistha, A.P.P

---------

04/Dated: 08.04.2021

1. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Deoghar rejecting the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner in connection with Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No.34 of 2020 arising out of Sarwan P.S. Case No. 72 of 2020 registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the confessional statement of co-accused Sourav Sringari was recorded prior to the recording of confessional statement of the petitioner hence the discovery of the pistol cannot be said to be made on the basis of the confessional statement of this petitioner. To buttress the argument reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (2003) 3 SCC

353. It is argued that such confessional statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

3. Learned APP has submitted that the confessional statement of the petitioner is recorded in para-32 of the case diary wherein the petitioner has graphically described about his involvement in the crime in association with other co-accused. He has admitted that he could lead the police to the place in the jungle where the co-accused were hiding with the pistol used in commission of murder of the deceased. The pistol was recovered from the possession of co-accused Sourav Sringari on the confessional statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the confessional statement of all the accused was recorded separately and each of them have made inculpatory statement of their and

petitioner's involvement in the crime. They have vividly described their participation in committing the murder of the deceased in a pre-planned manner.

4. Heard. The question whether the pistol was recovered on the confessional statement of the petitioner or the confessional statement of co-accused is a fact to be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced during the trial/enquiry in the court below. The petitioner and co- accused have made incontradictory confessional statement about involvement and the role of the petitioner in the in the commission of the crime. Considering the gravity and heinousness of the allegation the release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice and he needs rehabilitation through proper counselling.

5. In the result the revision stands dismissed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

Tarun/