(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2003 passed by learned

5th, Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.89

of 2001]

------

Amit Mukhi, son of Ashok Mukhi, residents of Jarandih P.S. and

District-Bokaro .... .... …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

------

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 06/12/2025 Pronounce On 28/01 /2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Yogesh Modi,

learned counsel for the sole appellant and learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned

counsel for the informant.

2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal

was filed by three accused persons, out of them, appellant

No.1, Ashok Mukhi and appellant No.3, Sumit Mukhi have

died and their appeal has been abated vide order dated

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

2

13.08.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of the sole

surviving appellant, namely, Amit Mukhi.

3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the order

dated 22.03.2003 passed by learned 5

th, Additional Sessions

Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.89 of 2001, whereby

and whereunder the present appellant has been held guilty for

the offence under sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Factual Matrix:-

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

01.01.2001 at 9:00 pm, the informant, Ramesh Mukhi (P.W.9)

returned to his quarter then his wife Anjula Devi (P.W.5) told

him that their son, Umesh Mukhi has been assaulted by the

appellants in the street. The informant managed first aid of his

injured son at CCL Hospital, Jarandih, thereafter, brought to

Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro for further treatment but on

02.01.2001 at about 8:30 am, Umesh Mukhi died in the hospital.

5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Bokaro

Thermal P. S. Case No.01 of 2001 was registered for the offence

under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC against the

accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-

sheet was submitted against all three accused persons, namely,

Ashok Mukhi, Amit Mukhi and Sumit Mukhi. The accused

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

3

persons have denied the charges leveled against them and

claimed to be tried. All the accused persons faced trial and

convicted and sentenced as stated above.

6. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses have been

examined by the prosecution, namely:-

P.W.1-Bhim Ram

P.W.2- Rajesh Mukhi

P.W.3-Raju Turi

P.W.4-Dr. Ratneshwar Pd. Verma

P.W.5-Anjula Devi

P.W.6-Renu Kumari

P.W.7-Shyam Bihar Singh Dinkar

P.W.8-Ram Lakhan Prasad

P.W.9- Ramesh Mukhi(informant)

P.W.10-S.I. Basant Pathak (I.O.)

7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following

documentary evidence has also been adduced by the

prosecution:-

Ext. 1- Post-mortem report

Ext.2.-Inquest R

Ext.3- Formal FIR

Ext.3/1-Endorsement on formal FIR

Ext.4-Written report

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

4

Ext.4/1-Signature of Ramesh Mukhi on written report

Ext.4/2-Signature of Shakil Alam on written report

Ext.5- Charge-sheets

Ext.6-Case diary

8. On the other hand, no documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence. However, the defence has also

examined altogether six witnesses namely:-

D.W.1-Bhimlal Mandal

D.W.2-Khageshwar Rajak

D.W.3-Md. Idu

D.W.4-Uma Shankar Prasad

D.W.5-Ranjit Singh

D.W.6-Ashok Mukhi(deceased appellant)

Submission on behalf of the Appellant:-

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

has been falsely implicated in this case due to some altercation

took place between his father and the deceased, Umesh Mukhi

on the occasion of new-year. It is further submitted that neither

the informant nor his wife has seen the occurrence rather they

are hearsay witnesses. No specific role has been attributed

against the appellant, Amit Mukhi. It is further submitted that

in the written report lodged by the informant, it is alleged that

the occurrence was seen by Nageshwar Bishwakarma, wife of

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

5

Madhu Thakur and wife of Doodhnath Dubey but the

aforesaid witnesses have not been examined by the

prosecution. The witnesses, who were closed relatives and

family members of the informant, were all along hearsay

witnesses have been projected as eye-witnesses of the

occurrence. Surprisingly, these witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W.2, P.W.3

and P.W.5 have also not attributed any specific role against the

present appellant showing his involvement in assaulting the

deceased. The witnesses have stated about the involvement of

the present appellant in a general and omnibus manner. No

incriminating materials have been collected and proved

against the appellant. Learned trial court has overlooked the

aforesaid aspects appearing in the evidence of witnesses and

acted upon bald testimony of the witnesses simply because

they have named the appellant as perpetrator in the incident of

assault to the deceased. Learned trial court has also failed to

properly appreciate the evidence of defence witnesses that at

the time of occurrence, the deceased was involved in snatching

the money from D.W.1, Bhimlal Mandal, therefore, he was

chased and assaulted by fists and slaps by the local persons

and FIR was lodged after thought against the appellant, his

father and brother. The impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence is based upon conjecture and surmises

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

6

and no cogent and reliable evidence is available on record.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

of the appellant is liable to be set aside.

Submission on behalf of State:-

10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel

for the informant defending the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence of the appellant has submitted that

learned trial court has very wisely and aptly taken into

consideration over all aspects of the case and also appreciated

properly the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence

and has rightly recorded the findings of guilt of the appellant

along with others. There is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by

way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to

whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of

the appellant suffers from any error of law and based beyond

the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any

interference in this appeal?”

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

12. We have gone through the record of the case along with

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

7

the appellant in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the

both side.

13. Before delving on merits in connection with above points, we

have to take brief resumes of evidence adduced by the parties

for proper adjudication of the issues.

14. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution.

P.W.1-Bhim Ram , who is a student of class 10th of

Rajendra High School, Jarandih. According to his evidence, on

01.01.2001 at about 8:00 to 8:30 pm, he was standing near the

shop of Jogendra, in the meantime, Umesh Mukhi came there

and met him along with Jogendra Mukhi and Ashok Mukhi

and congratulated for new-year shaking hand with them. He

further deposed that Ashok Mukhi taunted to Umesh Mukhi

saying that “चोर-

चुहार

भी आजकल सलाम करता है”. Upon this,

Umesh Mukhi replied that uncle “if I would be a thief then

how to walk on foot at this time.” Thereafter, Ashok Mukhi

slapped to Umesh Mukhi and also assaulted on his leg and

attempted to press his neck. Upon intervention of this witness,

Umesh Mukhi fled away towards his home and this witness

also returned to his house. Thereafter, he came to know that

Sumit Mukhi and Amit Mukhi have assaulted to Umesh

Mukhi due to which he became unconscious and was admitted

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

8

to C.C.L. Hospital, and thereafter brought to Bokaro General

Hospital but he died.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in his

presence at the shop of Yogendra, only Ashok Mukhi assaulted

to Umesh Mukhi by slapping for which no medical treatment

was given and later on what happened he had not seen.

P.W.2-Rajesh Mukhi is the son of the informant and

the brother of the deceased. He has told in general and

omnibus manner that on 1

st January, 2001 at about 8:00 pm,

Ashok Mukhi, Sumit Mukhi and Amit Mukhi had assaulted to

his brother, Umesh Mukhi due to which he became

unconscious and was brought to C.C.L. Hospital while blood

was oozing from his mouth. Thereafter, he was admitted to

B.G.C. Hospital thereafter he died. This witness has not

claimed his presence at the time of occurrence and no specific

overt act has been attributed against any of the accused

persons.

In his cross-examination, he admits that Ramesh

Mukhi and Anjula Devi are his parents as well as Poonam and

Renu are his sister and Bhola Mukhi is his uncle. At the time of

interrogation by police, all the persons were present in the

quarter. He also admits a tense relationship between his family

and the family of accused persons prior to the occurrence.

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

9

P.W.3-RajuTuri. According to his evidence on

01.01.2001 at about 8:00 pm, he was standing adjacent to mines

quarter along with Umesh @ Babu and they also met with

Bhim Ram and shook hand with him. Meanwhile, Ashok Ji

told him that “चोर-

चुहार से हाथ

gमलाता है“ and also slapped to

Umesh Mukhi. He has further deposed that he along with

Umesh went to his house where Umesh complained to his

mother about the said incident, then, his mother came out and

asked to Ashok Ji as to why he has slapped her son but she

was abused in a filthy language. In the meantime, Amit and

Sumit also came there and started assaulting to Umesh Mukhi

by dashing with the wall catching hold of his neck. Umesh

became serious and all accused persons fled away.

In his cross-examination, this witness clearly admits

that at the time of occurrence, he met with Umesh Mukhi and

he shook hands only with Bhim and Ashok (deceased

appellant) was sitting in the shop of Bode. Till the time, he was

along with Umesh and Ashok was sitting at the shop of Bode

and no other person was present there. The attention has been

drawn towards his statement recorded under section 161 of

Cr.P.C., wherein such statement has not been given by this

witness and suffers from serious material

contradiction/omissions.

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

10

P.W.4- Dr. Ratneshwar Pd. Verma has conducted

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Umesh Mukhi aged

about 16 years on 03.01.2001 and found following injuries:-

External

(i) Rigor mortis less marks in upper limbs and present

lower limbs. Left eye closed, right partially opened.

Conjunctive congested. Pupils dilated with closed. Lips

opened showing teeth tongue in oral cavity serous

discharged at right angle of the mouth hands opened.

Injuries

(i) A diffused contusion 3 ½ “ x 2 ½” right side of the

scalp over parieto temporal surface.

(ii) Ecchymosis 3” x 2 ½” middle of the chest wall on

the external area

(iii) Abrasion ½” x ½” medial wall puss of left ankle

joint

(iv) Lacerated would 1” x ¼” x skin deep puerperal

aperture of the penis with blood stain.

On dissection

(i) There was extravasation of blood in the eye cranial

spaces and soft tissues of the scalp under beneath of

injuries No.1

(ii) There was tissues fractures on the right parietal

bone of about 2 ½ “ long

(iii) There was big hematoma in the right frontal

parietal area of the head under the subdural spaces.

(iv)Meninges congested and intact the brain was also

contused and intact

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

11

(v) The vessels were congested and stomach and small

intestine contained digested food material fluid and

gas.

Opinion

(i) The injuries are ante-mortem caused by hard and

blunt object.

(ii) Cause of death: Cardio respiratory failure due to

severe head injury and multiple aroma.

(iii) Time elapsed since death till P.M. done less than 36

hours.

This witness has proved the post-mortem report as

Ext.1.

In cross-examination, this witness admits that injury

No.(i) caused due to fall on a person upon rocky earth with

sufficient force.

P.W.5- Anjula Devi , the wife of the informant and the

mother of the deceased. According to her evidence on 1

st

January, 2001 at about 8:30 pm, she was in her house

meanwhile her son Umesh entered in the house and told that

Ashok Mukhi has assaulted him. She went to the house of

Ashok to interrogate about the reasons, then he told “

तुम अपने

बेटे को बॉस बना के रखा है“and again started assaulting to her

son, Umesh putting him close to the wall. Her son fell down on

earth sustaining head injuries, then she sent her son to home.

Meanwhile, the sons of Ashok Mukhi, namely, Amit Mukhi

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

12

and Sumit Mukhi came out from back door and Amit Mukhi

pressed slipper of her son due to which, he fell down and they

also assaulted to her son by slaps, heel and fists. Meanwhile

her both daughters and elders son, Mukesh Mukhi came to

rescue her son but Mukesh was also assaulted and they

anyhow saved Umesh and brought him to hospital, C.C.L.

thereafter B.C.G, hospital but he died.

In her cross-examination, she admits that there were

no inimical terms between the deceased and the accused

persons prior to this occurrence. She admits that she does not

disclose the incident to her neighbour. Her attention was

drawn towards her statement recorded under section 161 of

Cr.P.C. wherein she has not disclosed before the police about

specific overt act of assault given to her son by any of the

accused persons. She has denied the suggestion that she has

not seen the occurrence and does not know about the real facts

that her son was snatching money from Bhimlal along with his

two other friends and when Bhimlal raised alarm, several local

persons assembled and rushed towards her son for chasing but

her son slipped and sustained injuries.

P.W.6-Renu Kumari is the sister of the deceased.

According to her evidence on 01.01.2001 at about 8:00 to 8:30

pm, she was sitting in her room meanwhile, Umesh came and

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

13

told that Ashok Mukhi has assaulted him. Thereafter, her

mother along with her younger brother and one sister went to

Ashok to ask as to why he has assaulted her son. Then, Ashok

Mukhi started abusing in a filthy language. She further

deposed that Ashok caught hold from the jacket of his brother

Umesh Mukhi and started assaulting him causing injuries on

his mouth and nose and Umesh became unconscious.

Thereafter, he was brought to C.C.L., Hospital thereafter

B.G.H, hospital, where he died.

In her cross-examination, her attention has been drawn

towards her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded

by the Investigating Officer, where she has not stated that

when her mother went to ask Ashok Mukhi as to why he has

assaulted her son then Ashok started assaulting her brother by

catching hold of his neck by his jacket causing severe injuries

to Umesh. She has denied suggestion of the defence that she

has given false evidence and has not seen the occurrence.

P.W.7- Shyam Bihari Singh Dinkar is a witness of

inquest report and has proved his signature as Ext.2.

P.W.8-Ram Lakhan Prasad is an advocate clerk and

formal witness, who has proved formal FIR as Ext.3 and

endorsement made on formal FIR as Ext.3/1.

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

14

P.W.9- Ramesh Mukhi is the informant of this case. He

corroborate the contents of his written report and stated that

on 01.01.2001 at about 9:00 pm when he returned his house

from his office then he saw his son, Umesh is lying

unconscious in house sustaining blooded injuries on his

nostrils and lips. His wife disclosed that that Ashok Mukhi,

Amit Mukhi and Sumit Mukhi have assaulted his son.

Thereafter, Umesh Mukhi was brought to C.C.L, hospital

where first-aid was given but injured was referred to B.G.C.

hospital where his son died in the next day morning.

Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of written report

(Ext.4) against the three named accused persons.

In his cross-examination, he clearly admits that he is

not an eye-witness of the occurrence whatsoever he deposed

about the occurrence and involvement of the accused persons

as disclosed to him by his wife.

P.W.10- S.I. Basant Pathak is the Investigating Officer.

According to his evidence on 02.01.2001 a written report was

submitted by the informant on the basis of which, FIR (Ext.3)

was registered for the offence under sections 302/34 of IPC. He

took charge of investigation and recorded the restatement of

the informant, Ramesh Mukhi and other witnesses, Anjula

Devi, Sakil Alam, Shyam Bihari Singh in the police station

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

15

itself and proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he

investigated the place of the occurrence also interrogated with

Bhim Ram, Raju Turi, Poonam Kumari, Renu Kumari and Bula

Mukhi etc. He also raided the house of the accused persons but

could not found their whereabouts and after recording the

statement of the witnesses, he inspected the place of

occurrence, later on he came to know that the accused persons

surrendered before the court. Thereafter, he handed over the

further charge of the investigation to S.I. Anil Kumar Singh.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that

witness Anjula Devi (P.W.5) has stated before him that slipper

Sumit and Amit started assaulting her son by fists and slaps.

This witness further deposed that P.W.3 has not stated before

him that he along with Umesh was standing on road and met

with Bhim where Ashok told him “चोर-

चुहार से हाथ

gमलाता है

”and Ashok slapped to Umesh.

15. On the other hand, the defence has also examined altogether

six witnesses.

D.W.1-Bhimlal Mandal. On 01.01.2001, he was going

to his residence and reached near mines road, meanwhile, two

persons caught hold him and snatched Rs.90 from his pocket

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

16

and assaulted him. Upon raising alarm by this witness, 10-12

local youths came from mines colony and caught hold of one

of miscreants while others managed to escape. The

apprehended miscreant was also assaulted by captors.

In his cross-examination, he admits that the occurrence

took place at 8:00 pm, he has not lodged any case for the above

incident. He has disclosed the above incident to Ashok Mukhi

hence he has come to depose in this case.

D.W.2- Khageshwar Rajak. According to his evidence,

on 01.01.2001 at about 7:45 pm, he heard hulla “chor-chor” near

the house of Uttam Mukhi and also saw some persons were

assaulting Umesh Mukhi saying that he has attempted to steal

money from Bhimlal Mandal (D.W.1).

D.W.3 Md. Idu has stated that the informant, Ramesh

Mukhi and Ashok Mukhi(deceased appellant) are mamera and

fufera brothers and resides as neighbour to each other. He

further stated that on 01.01.2001 at about 8:30 pm, he heard

hulla of chor-chor and also saw that some local persons have

caught hold of Umesh Mukhi, who has committed theft from

one Bhim lal Mandal.

D.W.4- Uma Shankar Prasad is the neighbour of

Ramesh Mukhi. He has also stated that Ramesh and Ashok are

mamera and fufera brothers. On 01.01.2001 at about 7:00 pm to

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

17

9:30 pm, he was in his quarter, he heard hulla of chor-chor and

came out from his house and he came to know from Bhim Lal

that Umesh Mukhi has snatched his money and some persons

have assaulted Umesh.

D.W.5-Ranjit Singh has stated that on 01.01.2001 at

about 8:00 pm, he heard hulla of chor-chor. In front of his house,

he met Bhimlal Mandal, who told him that some boys had

snatched away some money from him. He further stated that

somebody was assaulting Umesh Mukhi, many others were

present there. Ashok Mukhi came there and told the persons

present there to take Umesh Mukhi to hospital. Thereafter

Umesh Mukhi was brought to the hospital but he died.

D.W.6-Ashok Mukhi, one of the accused persons.

According to his evidence, he and Ramesh Mukhi (informant)

are mamera and fufera brothers of each other and Ramesh is

Bhagina of his father. He also admits the strain relationship

with Ramesh Mukhi from lifetime of his father. He further

deposed that on 01.01.2001 at about 8:00 pm, he heard hulla

chor-chor and when he went to the spot where Khageshwar,

Idu, Uma and Ranjeet Singh were present, who told that

Umesh and another boy was snatching money from Bhimlal.

He also inquired about Bhimlal Mandal, who told that Umesh

has snatched his money and two other boys have managed

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

18

there escape but Umesh Mukhi slipped and fell down and was

caught by the local persons and assaulted. This witness further

deposed that he has falsely been implicated in this case.

There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his

aforesaid testimony. Even he has not been suggested by the

prosecution that the informant’s wife had interrogated with

him as to why he has assaulted her son and again this witness

along with his sons, namely, Amit and Sumit assaulted to the

deceased rather these facts are suggested to deny.

16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of

ocular witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defence.

The sum and substance which emerges categorically depict

that it was Umesh Mukhi (deceased), who for the first time

met with his friends along with Ashok Mukhi, who is uncle in

relation. The deceased was shaking hand with his friends then

Ashok Mukhi commented “चोर-

चुहार से हाथ

gमलाता है” and

also slapped. This incident has been corroborated by the

evidence of P.W.1, Bhim Ram and P.W.3, Raju Turi, who

happens to be the friends of the deceased. Admittedly the

other witnesses of facts, namely, mother P.W.5 and father,

P.W.9, brother, P.W.2 and sister, P.W.6 of the deceased, all are

hearsay witnesses. The role of present appellant was not stated

by the mother of the deceased, Anjula Devi (P.W.5) to her own

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

19

husband. Accordingly, the facts deposed by her during trial

does not find place in the written report lodged by the

informant, even the testimony of these interested witnesses

clearly indicates the first phase of occurrence, which took place

between Ashok Mukhi and the deceased, where the deceased

was slapped. The second phase of the occurrence as projected

by the prosecution regarding the complaint to the mother of

the deceased about the assault given by Ashok Mukhi without

any reason and thereafter coming out of the deceased along

with his mother, who interrogated with the accused, Ashok

Mukhi as to why he has slapped and assaulted her son and

further assault was given by Amit Mukhi and Sumit Mukhi

appears to be material improvement in their evidence and

these facts are also omitted in their statement under section 161

of Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer, such type of

material omissions amount to contradiction. Therefore, we find

that no specific overt act has been attributed against the

present appellant, Amit Mukhi showing his participation in

the alleged occurrence of assault meted with the deceased. It

further transpires that altogether six defence witnesses have

been examined, who have narrated a story of theft by the

deceased at the relevant time and in course of chase, he fell

down and sustained injuries. The initial version contained in

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

20

the written report of the informant also finds mention of the

facts that the main accused of this case, Ashok Mukhi told the

deceased “चोर-

चुहार हाथ

gमलाता है. This also depicts a story of

commission of theft by the deceased. Therefore, overall factual

spectrum leads to irresistible inference that the role attributed

to the present appellant in commission of murder of the

deceased is absolutely doubtful, there is no concrete evidence

showing culpability of the appellant for the offence of murder.

We further find that learned trial court has failed to properly

appreciate the testimony of the witnesses in right perspective

and intrinsic value and veracity of the witnesses testing in the

light of contradictions and omissions appearing in their

evidence and arrived at wrong conclusion while recording the

conviction of the appellant.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find

substance in the point of arguments raised on behalf of the

appellant and merits in this appeal. Therefore, the impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the

appellant passed by learned 5

th, Additional Sessions Judge,

Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.89 of 2001 is hereby set

aside. This appeal is allowed.

18. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability

of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

(2026:JHHC:2289-DB)

Cr. A (D.B.) No.485 of 2003

21

19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be

sent back to the concerned trial court for information and

needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Date: 28/01 /2026

Pappu/- N.A.F.R.

Uploaded On 30/01/2026