Paulus Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2107 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Paulus Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1491 of 2024

    Paulus Munda, Aged about 48 years, Son of Late Tengra Munda,
    Resident of Village - Budhibeda Tola, Maganbera, P.O. & P.S. -
    Tatisilway, District - Ranchi
                                                ...       Appellant

                                    Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                           ...         Respondent
                                     -------

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

-------

Order No.04/Dated- 18.03.2026 I.A. No.2904 of 2026

1. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

4. It has been alleged that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the assault had taken place at the spur of the moment on account of a quarrel and therefore, the conviction should come within the purview of Section 304 of the I.P.C.

6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

7. It seems that on the confession of the appellant, the blood stained iron rod was recovered and as per the F.S.L. Report, the blood found on the iron rod matched with the same found in the clothes of the deceased. Moreover, it appears that the death had occurred in the residential premises of the appellant.

8. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. His prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

9. Accordingly, I.A. No.2904 of 2026 stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 18th March, 2026 Sachin/ Uploaded on: 19/03/2026