2025:JHHC:22357 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.121 of 2025 …. Subodh Keshri, aged about 36 years, son of Late Govind Keshri, Resident of Village-Kariyatpur, P.O. & P.S.-Barhi, Dist.- Hazaribagh ……Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Tuntun Devi, W/o Late Manoj Ravidas, At Vill.-Kariyatpur, Post-Barsot, P.S.-Barhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.PP …… Order No.03/06th August 2025 1. It appears from the Office note and Service Report of notice of Respondent No.2 i.e. the notice has been received by the niece of the Respondent No.2. 2. However, none appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2 even today i.e. on 06.08.2025. 3. It appears from the report sent vide Letter No.62 dated 13.05.2025 by Shri Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. Session Judge-VI- Cum-Spl.Judge SC/ST Act-cum Spl. Judge C.A.W. Hazaribagh that the prosecution has examined five witnesses out of seven (07) chargesheeted witnesses on the next date was fixed on 14.05.2025. 4. This Criminal Appeal has been has filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Misc. Criminal Application No.05/2025, SC/ST Case No.33/2024 in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.35/2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(S)/3(1)(R) of SC/ST Act by which the prayer of bail has been rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned 2025:JHHC:22357 2 Spl. PP. 6. The Informant has submitted a typed written statement to the Police Inspector-cum-Officer In-charge, Barhi P.S. stating therein that the appellant and some other persons had taken away her deceased husband namely Manoj Ravidas for some work and though she had forbade them from taking her husband for work but they abused her and took her husband for doing some work. Later on, her husband did not return. On 27.01.2024, the dead body of her husband was found near Upgraded High School, Kariyatpur. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the appellant was named in the FIR on the basis of mere suspicion and there is no allegation against him for committing his murder. It is submitted that the save and except the confessional statement of the appellant, there is no evidence against him. It is submitted that the Informant has lodged the FIR after delay of three days when the dead body of the husband was found on the date of occurrence or on the next date she has not made any complaint. It is submitted that the appellant is named on mere suspicion. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 27.01.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Spl.PP has opposed the prayer of bail of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and he was last seen with the deceased as per the statement of the Informant-prosecutrix. It is submitted that the appellant has confessed before the Police for committing the death of the deceased husband of the Informant. It is submitted that the Trial is being conducted and five (05) witnesses have been 2025:JHHC:22357 3 examined so far out of seven (07) chargesheeted witnesses and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be rejected. 9. Perused the FIR and Case Diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 10. It appears that the appellant and some other people are alleged to have taken the husband of the Informant for some work on 24.01.2024 and later on his dead body was recovered. 11. It appears from the paragraph 13 of the Case Diary which contains the confessional statement of the appellant, that the deceased had fell down while loading the gain sack on tempo. 12. It reveals from the Para-19 that the concerned tempo was seized by the police. 13. It also appears from the Postmortem report of the deceased that deceased had died of multiple injuries caused by hard and blunt substant and which appears to be contradictory from the confessional statement of the appellant. 14. It also appears that the appellant has been made accused only on the basis of his confessional statement. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Subodh Keshri is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh or his Successor Court in connection with Misc. Criminal Application No.05/2025, SC/ST Case No.33/2024 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.35/2024 subject to the condition that one of the bailor should be own relative of the appellant and also subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs) as a victim compensation to the Informant before the learned Court below at the time of furnishing the bail bonds which 2025:JHHC:22357 4 shall be disbursed to the Informant by the learned Court below through the DLSA, Hazaribagh on filing such an application. 16. The Informant will be at liberty to move for grant of compensation before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.121 of 2025 is allowed. 18. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Misc. Criminal Application No.05/2025, SC/ST Case No.33/2024 is set aside. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-