NIMAN BAXLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jari P.S. Case No. 03/11 corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2011 registered for offences under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of Arms Act which is presently pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Gumla awaiting final form.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R even there is no suspicion against the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner has implicated in this case only on the basis of the statements of Sovdan Bara recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after fourteen (14) days of the alleged occurrence and no explanation for delay has been mentioned. Though Sovdan Bara is the maternal uncle of the deceased thus, his silence for fourteen days create serious doubt.