UPENDRA KUMAR RAVI ALIAS UPENDRA RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2024-12-10. UPENDRA KUMAR RAVI ALIAS UPENDRA RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 6393 of 2024 With I. A. No. 12179 of 2024 ----- Upendra Kumar Ravi @ Upendra Ram, S/o Chandrakant Ram, Village Dadai, P. O. & P. S. Patan, District Palamau. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. B. K. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP ----- Order No. 04 Date: 10. 12. 2024 1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner is brother-in-law (SARHU) of the informant’s son- Sudhir Kumar Ravi (deceased).
It has been alleged against the petitioner and co-accused Vinay Ram (father-in-law of the deceased) that after quarrel took place between the deceased and co-accused th Jayanti Kumari (wife of Sudhir Kumar Ravi) on 9 April, 2024, she called the petitioner and her father- Vinay Ram whereafter all of them assaulted the informant’s son, confined him in the house and threatened him to send to jail due to which his th health got deteriorated and on 12 April, 2024 he committed suicide by hanging himself. It is further submitted that in course of investigation, none of the independent witnesses have stated that the petitioner and co-accused-Vinay Ram were involved in beating or assaulting the deceased. In fact, the main allegation is against co-accused- Jayanti Kumari, who can only be said to be responsible for abating Sudhir Kumar Ravi to commit suicide. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned A. P. P.
though opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, however, on going through the case diary, he submits that no statement of any independent witness has been recorded during investigation, suggesting that the petitioner along with co-accused- Vinay Ram was involved in assaulting Sudhir Kumar Ravi soon before his death. However, witnesses, namely, Kail Ram and Ranjan Kumar Ravi have stated that they heard noise of quarrel from the house of the th informant on 9 April, 2024. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, in event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau, in connection with Lesliganj P. S. Case no. 55 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B. N. S. S. , 2023. 5. I. A. No. 12179 of 2024 stands disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J. ) Sanjay/ -2- A. B. A. No. 6393 of 2024
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.