Jharkhand High Court
Dibakar Mahato @ Diwakar Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1106 of 2019
1. Dibakar Mahato @ Diwakar Mahato
2. Pabi Mahato @ Pabita Mahato ... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate &
Mr. Awinath Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
Order No. 06 Dated 23rd November, 2021
I.A. No. 1657 of 2020
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that he is not pressing this application so far as the appellant No. 1
is concerned.
Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands dismissed as not
pressed as against the appellant No. 1 at this stage.
So far as the appellant No. 2 is concerned, her prayer for bail was
earlier rejected on 13.02.2020 in I.A. No. 10492 of 2019.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 that
she is the mother-in-law of the deceased who is in custody since 24.08.2017.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 has drawn the attention
of the Court to the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 who happens to be the
neighbours of the appellant No. 2 and who had disclosed that the appellant
No. 2 was not present when the incident had taken place. Learned counsel
further adds that the appellant No. 2 has been convicted for the offence u/s
302 I.P.C. though charge was framed u/s 304B/34 I.P.C. and alternatively
u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and the finding of the learned trial court seems to be
contradictory as would be evident from Para-33 of the said judgment. On
the aforesaid parameters, learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 has prayed
for grant of bail to her during the pendency of this appeal.
Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant No. 2 and has referred to the evidence of the Investigating Officer
who is P.W. 11 and who has stated that there was smell of kerosene oil on
the person of the deceased when he had gone to the place of occurrence after
the incident had occurred. It has further been stated by learned APP while
relying on the evidence of P.W. 10, where P.W. 10 has opined that the death
of the deceased cannot be said to have occurred on account of burn injury
suffered by her while cooking.
It appears that though the Investigating Officer had found the smell
of kerosene oil over the person of the deceased and had also found certain
burnt materials but it has been categorically stated that neither he had seized
the burnt materials nor did he send the same for chemical examination. So
far as the evidence of P.W. 10, the Doctor is concerned, he has also stated
that neither there were any antemortem injuries found on the person of the
deceased nor the presence of kerosene oil over the same.
Mr. Sinha at this juncture has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 1
who had disclosed that the relationship between the accused and the
deceased was cordial.
On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to grant bail
to the appellant No. 2. The appellant No. 2 accordingly, during pendency of
this appeal, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned trial court [Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Ghatshila] in connection with Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2018.
I.A. No. 1657 of 2020 stands disposed of.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(RAJESH KUMAR, J.)
MK
