RAJESH BOURI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to page no. 14 of the paperbook has submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in Jogta (Loyabad) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2013 (S.T. No. 152 of 2013) registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.10.2012. In the F.I.R. which was lodged on 26.10.2012, it has been specifically claimed that this petitioner was seen with the deceased on the previous night and while fleeing away from the place of occurrence, he was caught by the villagers and handed over to the police however, the arrest memo which has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit would disclose that the petitioner was arrested on 26.10.2012 and time of arrest has not been mentioned in the arrest memo. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the occurrence took place in the night of 25.10.2010 at about 10 pm and several villagers had gathered at the place of occurrence, no report was made to the police on 25.10.2010. It has also not been disclosed by the informant who is the person who informed her about the death of the deceased. In the F.I.R., it has been claimed by the petitioner that she received an information that her sister died due to burn however, she has not made any specific allegation against this petitioner, though it has been claimed that the petitioner was caught by the villagers while fleeing away from the place of occurrence. F.I.R. was lodged on 26.10.2012 at about 11am and no explanation has been offered on behalf of the prosecution for lodging of the F.I.R. so belatedly in such a serious matter. It is stated that the petitioner had a relationship with the sister of the informant, Gulabi Devi, who had already left her husband about 10 years back. The motive alleged is clearly absurd as it has been stated that the petitioner was expecting a job in BCCL and he killed Gulabi Devi so that she could not have claimed herself to be his wife. In this circumstance, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is serious doubt regarding the complicity of this petitioner in the crime and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. The chargesheet has already been filed in this case on 30.11.2012. I find merit in the submission raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with Jogta (Loyabad) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2013 (S.T. No. 152 of 2013), subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner.