PARAS NATH MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to order dated 08.02.2017, section officer has verified that no other criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction passed in S.T. 160 of 2009 (Chatra).

(2.) Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was all along on bail and has never misutilized the liberty granted to him. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the present case does not come within the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in as much as it is based upon the circumstantial evidence, but, the chain of circumstances is not completed by corroborative evidence. The learned senior counsel, therefore, prays that the appellant may be released on bail.

(3.) Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that P.W.10, the brother of the deceased, stated that his Bhabhi had illicit relationship with the appellant and the appellant and his Bhabhi have murdered the deceased by strangulating him. P.W. 12, the Doctor, opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation and postmortem report (Ext.9) has also corroborated the same and, therefore, the appellant does not deserve bail. However, learned Addl. P.P. admitted that the appellant was all along on bail and he has never mis-utilized the liberty granted to him.