Rudra Pratap Yadav @ Nitish Yadav @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2740 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 335 of 2023
        Rudra Pratap Yadav @ Nitish Yadav @ Rudra. ...Appellant
                                Versus
        1. The State of Jharkhand.
        2. Ramesh Ravidas                        .... ...Respondents
                              --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Agrawal, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

--------

05/ 09.08.2023 This Cr. Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant against the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the

Addl. Sessions Judge-1st, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application

No. 642 of 2023 whereby the bail application of the appellant

has been rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted

that in this case all the prosecution witnesses have been

examined. Their deposition statements have been made

Annexure with the appeal. There are five injured persons. One

of them died. The one injured who died the cause of death is not

the ante-mortem injuries rather it was shock preceded by

thoracic trauma within 24 hours. So far as the injury to other

injured persons is concerned all are simple in nature caused by

hard and blunt object. The informant was examined as P.W.5.

He is not aware in regard to the contents of the F.I.R. and he

has admitted that it was Ravindra Ram who had written the

written information and the whole case was being guided and

led by him. The appellant has been languishing in Jail since

11.06.2021 having no criminal antecedent.

3. The learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and the learned

A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned

Counsel for the appellant and contended that all the four

injured witnesses have supported the prosecution case. One of

the injured died though not sustaining injury yet the trauma

was also caused on account of the incident caused by the

accused persons. The statement of all the injured witnesses are

being corroborated with the injury report which has been

proved by the Doctor. Accordingly contended to dismiss this

appeal.

4. The prosecution story in view of the F.I.R. is that on

02.06.2021 at 5:30 the children were playing cricket in a nearby

ground of his house. Nitish Yadav @ Rudra had restrained them

to play cricket and also hurled abuse to them. However the

matter was pacified at that time. Thereafter the informant and

his family members were in the house all of a sudden Nitish

Yadav @ Rudra, Rohit Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Arjun Yadav @ Bilta

and Gajendra Nayak all along with 10 to 15 other persons

armed with sharp edged weapon came in furtherance of

common intention and assaulted to the inmates of the house.

They also began to outrage the modesty of the females of the

house. They assaulted with sharp edged weapon and also Lathi,

Danda to the sister Bindu Devi, brother Raju Ravidas, Ramesh

Ravidas, Sagar Ravidas and wife of informant Sudha Devi. They

also used caste related words and hurled abuse. The persons of

the colony attracted there and saw the occurrence. All the

injured persons were taken to the hospital. His sister Bindu

Devi was referred for higher treatment to Bokaro where she was

declared dead.

5. The informant Ramesh Ravidas was examined before

the trial court as P.W.5. This witness in his Examination-in-

chief corroborated the prosecution story. In cross examination

this witness stated that the written information was got written

by his brother Raju Ravidas on which he put his signature. Raju

Ravidas got written the name of all the five accused. Earlier he

was not aware with all the five accused before naming them in

the written information. Ravindra Ram is the head of Ravidas

society. This witness also admitted in his Examinantion-in-chief

that the written information was got written by Ravindra Ram.

Further this witness also says from the date of occurrence till

date this case is being looked after by Raju Ravidas and other

leaders of the society. One letter was also given to the scheduled

caste commission what was written in that he is not aware.

6. P.W.13 Dr. Shivani Singh who conducted the post-

mortem of the deceased. There were five external injuries all

were bruises and all were likely to be caused by hard and blunt

object. It is also stated by this witness that all external injuries

were not fatal. Death was not likely to be caused by any of the

injuries. The cause of death is shown shock preceded by

thoracic trauma within 24 hours. The other injured witnesses

P.W.1 Sagar Kumar, P.W.2 Sudha Devi, P.W.4 Raju Ravidas and

P.W.5 Ramesh Ravidas. All have also supported the prosecution

story and so far as the injury to all these injured are concerned,

the same was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt

object. None of the injury was caused to any of the injured by

sharp edged weapon which is alleged to be in the F.I.R. that the

accused persons were armed with sharp edged weapon.

7. Keeping in view the testimony of these witnesses who

were examined before the trial court, the impugned order

passed by the court-below whereby bail application of the

appellant has been rejected bears infirmity and same needs

interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Appeal is hereby allowed.

8. The impugned order passed by the court-below is set

aside.

9. In consequence thereof, the appellant is directed to

be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of like

amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge,1st,

Bokaro in SC/ST Case No.01 of 2021, arising out of Gomia

(Kathara OP) P.S. Case No. 54 of 2021.

10. It is made clear that any observation made in this

order shall not prejudice the trial court in passing the Judgment

after conclusion of the trial.

(Subhash Chand, J.) P.K.S.