IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9419 of 2010
Raju Mahto ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prem Prakash, A.P. P.
th
02/Dated: 25 February, 2011
1. The present bail application has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting him enlarged
on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.507 of 2008, arising out of Hirodih
Police Station Case No.46 of 2008, registered for the offence under Sections
147/148/149/341
/323/324/325/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code,
pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Giridih.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case I find that on two earlier occasions the bail
applications preferred by this petitioner have been rejected by detail order.
Earlier bail application No.940 of 2009 was dismissed vide order dated 2nd of
April, 2009 and another bail application preferred by the petitioner was bail
application No.9105 of 2009 which was dismissed on 29th January, 2010. This is
the third successive bail application. Allegations levelled against the present
petitioner are that he has caused head injury upon the deceased by a sharp
cutting instrument as a result of which deceased had expired. Trial has also
commenced and few of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined.
Thus, in this set of circumstances and also looking to the fact that if at this stage
petitioner is granted bail, he may temper with the evidence or will not be
available at the stage of trial, there is no change in the circumstance after the
previous bail applications have been dismissed, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
NKC