IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.)No. 384 of 2005
---
1. Ishwar Marandi
2. Munshi Marandi
3. Dhabu Marandi
4. Bhagan Marandi
5. Shibrat Marandi … … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
—
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
—
For the Appellants : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : A.P.P.
---
Order No. 4 Dated, 11th day of July 2011
I. A. No. 1114 of 2011:
Heard the parties on the prayer for bail.
It is submitted that the prayer for bail of appellant nos. 4
and 5 was rejected on 11.5.2005 and after receipt of lower court
records, bail of appellant nos. 1, 2 & 3 was rejected on 21.6.2005. So
far as appelant no. 2 – Munshi Marandi is concerned, P.W. 2 said that
he has assaulted by lathi whereas P.W. 3 said that he assaulted by
Talwar and P.W. 4 has not named him. So far as P.W. 3 – Dhabu
Marandi is concerned, allegation against him is that he inflicted injury
by bow and arrow, but the same did not hit the deceased and then he
caused injury by lathi, and that the deceased died after about 14 days
during treatment; and that the appellants have remained in jail for a
total period of about 7 years and there is no chance of hearing of
appeal in near future.
In the circumstances, we are inclined to grant bail to
appellant nos. 2 – Munshi Marandi and appellant no. 3 – Dhabu
Marandi. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the
appellant nos. 2 & 3 as above named are directed to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each, with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Sessions
Judge, Dumka in connection with Sessions Case No. 226 of 1999
arising out of Dumka (M) P. S. Case No. 3 of 1999 on the conditions
-2-
that one of the bailors will be their close relative and other should have
landed property within the jurisdiction of the Court.
So far appellant no. 1 – Ishwar Marandi, appellant no. 4 –
Bhagan Marandi and appellant no. 5 – Shibrat Marandi are concerned,
we are not inclined to grant them bail as the manner of assault
corroborates medical evidence. However, let the hearing of the appeal
be expedited.
I. A. No. 1114 of 2011 stands disposed of.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
(P. P. Bhatt, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3