Binod Kumar Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3574 Jhar

                               -1-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.408 of 2019
                            ---------

Binod Kumar Pathak @ Vinod Pathak ..... Appellant

Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR Through-Video Conferencing

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. B. M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P

---------

05/Dated: 23rd September, 2021

I.A. No.3230 of 2021

1. Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vanadan Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected in I.A. No.9194 of 2019 vide order dated 04.12.2019. On renewing the prayer for bail of the appellant, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel by referring to the evidence of P.Ws.-9 & 10 that they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It has been stated that there is no evidence on record, which would suggest that the appellant was seen at the time of occurrence in and around the house. It has further been submitted that in Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, he has explained and recorded the incident that he had gone out side for the work of the union. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the explanation submitted by the appellant with respect to the motive and stated that since the deceased was at Ranchi and used to run a Girl's lodge, some miscreants had given threatening to her to do away with her life. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 30.01.2018.

3. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail and has tried to discard the plea of alibi by referring to the judgment under challenge.

4. It appears that P.Ws.- 9 & 10 are the main witnesses to the occurrence and both have been declared hostile by the

prosecution. Both, P.Ws.-9 & 10 are the daughters of the deceased as well as the appellant and their turning hostile, appears to be understandable. The presence of the dead body of his wife in two pieces inside the house has not been properly explained by the appellant though the learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards various evidences in order to discard the appellant as the perpetrator of murder of the wife of the appellant.

5. In view of the circumstances noted above, we are not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the appellant. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is, hereby, rejected.

6. I.A. No.3230 of 2021 stands dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi- Chandan/-