In bail application under B. A. No.2033 of 2016, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's bail plea in a murder and kidnapping case and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to conclude case within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.2033 of 2016
Md. Ibrar …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashish Jha, A. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate
06/Dated: 03/08/2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 91 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 1492 of 2015, for the offence registered under sections 364, 302, 120(b), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that on 07.10.2015 in the evening while the informant and his brother namely Md. Mokim Ansari were going to home, the accused persons of this case including the petitioner intercepted them and started to assault Md. Mokim Ansari by stick, any how the informant fled away. It is further alleged that after making conspiracy, the accused persons abducted the brother of the informant. Thereafter, search was made. On 08.10.2015, the motorcycle of Md. Mokim Ansari was found parked on the road under Bhurkunda forest which caused suspicion in the mind regarding murder of the victim then on search, dead body of Md. Mokim Ansari was found lying in Pachkeri forest.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2015. It is further submitted that trial has commenced and three witnesses have been examined, so the petitioner deserve the privilege of bail.
Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and filed counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and one coaccused namely Md. Moin Ansari and after framing of charge, trial has commenced. It is further submitted that three witnesses out of twelve
charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted that P.W.3 Md. Junaid Ansari is the eye-witness of the case, who has specifically stated that this petitioner assaulted upon the head of the deceased. It is further submitted that witnesses are being threated by the accused persons.
Learned A.P.P has also opposed the prayer for bail and filed counteraffidavit.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.
The Trial Court is directed to conclude the case preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Satyarthi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner who is an accused in a murder and kidnapping case and in custody since 08.10.2015.
Whether the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific time limit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Ibrar
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
