Jharkhand High Court
Raju Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
BA No. 11000 of 2023
------
Raju Rajwar ......... ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ................ Opposite Party
With
BA No. 772 of 2024
Pradeep Pal ........ Petitioner
versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate;
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
(In both cases)
For the Informant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate;
Mr. Gopal K. Krishna, Advocate;
Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, (APP)
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha,(APP)
------
Order No. 5 Dated- 07.05.2024
When the matters are called out, the learned counsels for the
parties are present.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier vide
order dated 30.11.2023, the bail application of the petitioner namely,
Pradeep Pal has been withdrawn with liberty to file the same after
framing of charge. The counsel further submits that FIR is lodged
against 2 persons namely, Umesh Prasad and Santosh Prasad and
submits that the petitioners are not either of them. The counsel further
submits that it is alleged that the petitioners are associates of the
deceased which is totally false, rather they are labourers. The counsel
further submits that only on the confessional statement of the co-
accused Umit Rajwar, and also because of certain differences or
enmity, the names of these petitioners have been dragged into this
alleged crime. Regarding the petitioner, Raju Rajwar, the counsel
submits that it is wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment that
the motorcycle was recovered from the house of the petitioner rather it
was recovered in the jungle near the body of the deceased, which is
also revealed in the case diary. The prosecution witnesses, have stated
that the police have told them, the names of the petitioners and that is
how they deposed against the petitioners. The counsel further pointed
out to paragraph No. 58 of the case diary in which it is indicated that
police had only recovered the cover of mobile phones and broken
tempered glass from the possession of these petitioners.
Mr. B.M. Tripathi, the learned senior counsel for the Informant,
argued with reference to the paragraphs of the Case diary and pointed
out to Page 15 and 16 of the case diary in which the crime history is
narrated by the petitioner, Pradeep Pal himself. The Senior counsel has
particularly stressed on the aspect of the mobile of the deceased which
was retained originally by the petitioners which is mentioned in Page
16 of the case diary. Page 16 of the case diary also describes the
discussions of the petitioners regarding breaking of mobile phones into
pieces and hiding them near Kamta Bodra village. In Paragraph No. 55
of the case diary there is reference of confession of Pradeep Pal and
Raju Rajwar. The counsel further stressed on Paragraph No. 58 in
which it is mentioned that both the petitioners were taken to the field
near Kamta Bodra village, where they pointed out the pieces of the
mobile phones which belonged to the deceased, Birendra Prasad. The
counsel further submits that the manner of assault has to be borne in
mind in which the face of the deceased was smashed with stone and
disfigured, and therefore, bail to the petitioners shall be denied.
Learned counsel for the informant appearing on behalf of the
petitioner Raju Rajwar has endorsed the arguments advanced by the
learned senior counsel Mr. B.M. Tripathi.
Considering the above facts, circumstances, on the record and
nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Hence the prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected in
connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 40/2023.
The learned court below is directed to conclude the trial as early
as possible.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
KNR/Abha/-
