In this bail application by an accused husband in a dowry death case, the High Court rejected the plea for regular bail because the trial was at a concluding stage.
Petitioner's prayer for bail in S.T. No.197 of 2016 stands rejected.
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.8182 of 2017
Md. Kalim. ………. Petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Jharkhand. .……... Opposite Party.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP
03/01.12.2017: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22nd October, 2016 in B.A. No.8956 of 2016, giving liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 8th March, 2016 and at least considering the period of judicial custody, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP, while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail, submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The trial is at concluding stage and, therefore, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
On perusal of the status report regarding stage of trial sent by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide Letter No.596 dated 18th November, 2017, it appears that out of seven charge-sheet witnesses, five witnesses have already examined. The investigating officer and the doctor remain to be examined in the trial.
Considering the fact that the trial is at concluding stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with S.T. No.197 of 2016, arising out of Sadar (Bara Bazar) P.S. Case No.129 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.317 of 2016.
-2-
Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial by ensuring presence of the investigating officer and the doctor without any undue delay.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, the husband of the deceased in a Section 304B IPC case where the trial is at the concluding stage, is entitled to regular bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Kalim
State of Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
