Bail application by an accused in alleged murder and attempt murder charges, citing chronic asthma and four years custody. Court rejected bail despite health grounds.
Petitioner's bail application 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. 2917 of 2018
Wahid Ansari …Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ...Opp.Party
...Opp.Party
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
05/06.07.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Sessions Trial No. 324 of 2014 arising out of Gomia P.S. Case no. 70 of 2014, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail applications of the petitioner have earlier been rejected four times by this Court. The main reason for filing the present bail application is that the petitioner is not keeping good health as he has been suffering from chronic ‘Asthma’. Considering the critical health condition of the petitioner, after obtaining permission of the trial court, the petitioner was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for his better treatment. On perusal of the status report dated 04.05.2018 regarding the stage of the trial submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Bermo at Tenughat, it would appear that out of 17 chargesheet witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.05.2014 i.e. more than four years. Considering his ill-health and the length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given privilege of regular bail.
Learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail submits that earlier the bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected four times by this Court on merit. The impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Bermo at Tenughat would suggest that the petitioner is getting proper medical facility and as such, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering his chronic asthma and length of custody despite previous rejections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Wahid Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
