KANAHAIYA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in Chandil p. S. case No. 60 of 2007 registered under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when a dead body of a person was found lying at NH-33 near village ashan Bani, it was identified as that of the dead body of Suresh Singh from identity card and a case was registered against unknown but in course of investigation, the petitioner was booked in this case only on the basis of the suspicion as it is said that some monetary dispute was there with the deceased who had been asked by the petitioner to come to Jamshedpur and that the petitioner had had knowledge that the deceased is coming to Jamshedpur and had had a talk with the deceased through mobile before the deceased reached jamshedpur and also at the time of his arrival at Jamshedpur but it is quite strange that Mobile of the deceased was never found near the dead body as the informant, who is a Choukidar in his fardbeyan has never disclosed about that fact nor the inquest report does suggest that mobile was found near the dead body and, therefore, prosecuting agency can be said to have manufactured all the materials that the petitioner had had a talk with the deceased before the deceased was found murdered and that there has been no reason on the part of the petitioner to commit murder of the deceased, rather the conduct of the petitioner would go to show about his innocence. In this regard, it was submitted that when the petitioner after knowing that the dead body has been brought at the MGM Hospital came there and after seeing the dead body, he was so perturbed that he was unable to speak anything which fact has been noted by the investigating Officer and that whenever investigating Officer approached, the petitioner always made himself available for interrogation and made statements which statements subsequently were subjected to polygraph Test where the petitioner was never found to have responded deceitfully, which is evident from the Polygraph Test and as such it is only suspicion on the basis of which petitioner has been detained and this fact has also been noted by the learned sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application.