IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 352 of 2011
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 357 of 2011
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 388 of 2011
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 395 of 2011
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 351 of 2011
---
Tripurari Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 352/11)
1. Bajrangi Singh & 2. Dulal Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 357/11)
Baijnath Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 388/11)
Vishwanath Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 395/11)
Dilip Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 351/11 Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Respondent
—
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt
—
For the Appellants:Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Naveen
(Cr. Appeals 351/11, 352/11, 357/11): Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Appellant: Mr. M.S. Chhabra, Advocate
(Cr. Appeal 388/11)
For the Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(Cr. Appeal 395/11)
For the State: Mr. T.N. Verma, A.P.P.
For the Informant: Mr. Jaiprakash, Sr. Advocate and
(in all the cases) Mrs. Jasodhara Tripathi, Advocate
—
Order No. 6 Dated 13th July 2011
---
Cr. Appeal No. 351/2011
This appeal will be heard along with the connected Cr.
Appeal No. 352/11 and other appeals in which lower court records
have been received.
Cr. Appeal Nos. 351/11, 352/11, 357/11, 388/11 and 395/11
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for
the State and learned counsel for the informant appearing in all
these appeals on the prayer for bail.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned
trial court has heavily relied on the evidence of PW3 who happens
to be a chance witness and from his conduct, he should not have
been believed. Regarding the appellant Bajrangi Singh (Cr. Appeal
No. 357/11), it is inter-alia stated that he is aged about 70 years
and his son Dulal Singh is also one of the convicts. Regarding
appellant Baijnath Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 388/11), it is submitted
that though, PWs 2 and 3 named all the convicts, but PWs 1 and 4
did not name this appellant-Baijnath Singh.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Vishwanath Singh inter-alia submitted that the alleged
recovery of shirt on the confession of this appellant has been made
prior to his arrest and it cannot be said that on his confession, such
recovery was made.
Counsel for the State and counsel for the informant opposed
the prayer for bail. They submitted that the prosecution has
successfully proved that due to non-payment of ‘Rangdari’, the
deceased was called from his house for taking liquor and then, he
was killed by the accused-convicts with common intention. Learned
counsel further submitted that the recovery of two buttons of the
shirt from the place of occurrence, has been duly proved by the
prosecution.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to
grant bail to the appellant- Bajrangi Singh on the ground of his old
age and appellant-Baijnath Singh on the ground that he was not
named by PWs 1 and 4, though other witnesses named him.
During the pendency of these appeals, appellant no. 1-
Bajrangi Singh (Cr. Appeal No.357/11) and appellant-Baijnath
Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 388/11), are directed to be released on bail
on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2010 with the condition that one of
the bailers shall be the close relative of the appellants and the
other should have landed property within the local jurisdiction of
the court below.
So far as other appellants are concerned, we are not inclined
to grant bail to them. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected.
(R.K. Merathia, J)
(P.P.Bhatt, J)
Ranjeet/