JP Bhola Sao sought regular bail in a Sessions trial under various IPC sections for H&S murder offences. The High Court held that no fresh grounds were made out after prior rejection and dismissed the application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial. (B.A. No. 8367 of 2017)
Bail application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite trial.
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. 8367 of 2017
Bhola Sao, son of Late Banoudi Sao, resident of Village-Sirsi, P.O. & P.S.-Katkamdag, District-Hazaribagh ... … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 2, A.P.P. -----
04/01.12.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 341/323/498-A/326/307/302/304-B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with S.T. No. 33 of 2016, arising out of Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 83 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3118 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2017 in B.A. No. 6233 of 2016.
By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, several independent witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and had reached there, after the incident of burning of the deceased had already occurred. Moreover, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.10.2015 and at least considering his length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated
16.01.2017 in B.A. No. 6233 of 2016. The petitioner has not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of his prayer for bail and as such, he may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has not made any fresh ground for reconsideration of his prayer for bail, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, hence, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same without any undue delay.
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail after his earlier application was rejected on merit without any fresh grounds.
Whether the bail application requires to be dismissed and the trial court expedite the trial.
Bhola Sao
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
