Anil Kumar vs Union of India

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 405 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1259 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

The 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. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. During the investigation, the informant Girdhari Mahto was made accused along with the petitioner. The statement of witness Vishwanath Mahto (son of the deceased) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C ., wherein he stated that co-accused Pardeshiya Mahto had assaulted the deceased by means of tangi due to which she died. Another witness Aitwa Mahto (husband of the deceased) has stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C . that the deceased was killed by Pardeshiya Mahto out of a conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and co-accused Girdhari Mahto. Co-accused Girdhari Mahto has already been enlarged on regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2016 in B.A. No. 9237 of 2016. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.07.2016 and, therefore, his prayer for bail may be considered sympathetically.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner''s prayer for bail submits that the case of co-accused Girdhari Mahto cannot be equated with the petitioner. During the investigation, it surfaced that the petitioner was having strong motive to kill the deceased as his one year old son died and he was having the notion that his son died due to witchcraft practices of the deceased. On the day of occurrence, the deceased was returning after attending the "shradh" of the son of the petitioner. In such circumstance, the petitioner being the main conspirator of the murder of the deceased may not be enlarged on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, hence, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.