Jharkhand High Court
Pralay Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 6190 of 2021
In
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 966 of 2018
---------
Pralay Das ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
---------
04/09.12.2021 Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the
respondent.
The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected
in I.A. No. 11569 of 2019 vide order dated 19.02.2020.
Renewing the prayer for bail of the appellant, it has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the DNA profile does not indicate that the blood stains found
on the shirt of the appellant matched with any of the
deceased. It has been submitted that the basis for conviction
of the appellant is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 who
happens to be the informant as well as the wife of the
appellant but in her evidence in course of trial she has not
supported the said fact. It has been submitted that so far as
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 are concerned, their source
of information with respect to the appellant disclosing about
committing the murder of his parents-in-law as well as his
sister-in-law was P.W.2 but since P.W.2 has not supported
the said fact in her evidence during trial the edifice built by
P.W.1 and P.W.4 stands automatically demolished. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that there are no other
evidence save and except the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2
which has erroneously been relied upon by the learned trial
court while convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant.
Although, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the DNA profile did not conclusively prove that the blood
stains found on the shirt of the appellant matched with the
blood of any of the deceased but it appears from the judgment
of the learned trial court that it has been concluded that the
FSL report does not help the prosecution case against the
accused persons. The only factor which perhaps had weighed
in the mind of the learned trial court is the statement of
P.W.2 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. but the same also seems to have been
diluted as in her evidence during trial she has not stated
about the appellant disclosing the fact of committing the
murder of her parents as well as her sister and in fact the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 also is greatly diluted on
account of the evidence of P.W.2 during trial.
In such circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to
grant bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII,
Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 393/2013, arising out of
Sidgora P.S. Case No. 191/2012, corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 3543/2012.
I.A. No. 6190 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed off.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alok/-
