Allowed

Kunal Kishore Singh Alias Kunal Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2018B.A./3122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand enlarged the petitioner on bail in a criminal offence under Sections 364A/302/34 IPC. The court acknowledged the delay in trial exceeding the promised timeline and directed the petitioner to cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount.

Kunal Kishore Singh Alias Kunal Singh Vs The State Of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3122 of 2017 Kunal Kishore Singh @ Kunal Singh ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……….Opposite Party --------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶2

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. -----------

¶3

07/Dated:07.02.2018

¶4

The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 364A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner had been declined as the court below submitted the status report in October, 2016 that trial would be concluded within two or three months. Liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial was not concluded within two to three months. It is submitted that more than 1 and ½ years has lapsed but the trial has not been concluded. The trial court has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the witnesses could not be examined due to non-appearance of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner was transferred to Dumka jail and he was not produced before the court below on the dates fixed. Moreover, the court below could have examined the witnesses through video conferencing facility. It is argued that save and except the statement of the informant, no other witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner.

¶6

Learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the trial is in progress therefore, up-to-date status report may be called for from the court below.

¶7

Heard. Considering the period of custody and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in connection with Senha P.S. Case No.78 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.468 of 2014, (S.T. No. 29 of 2016), subject to a condition that he shall be present as and when directed by the trial court, till the conclusion of the trial and shall cooperate in expeditious trial, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass necessary order in the matter.

¶8

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶9

Tarun/-

Kunal Kishore Singh Alias Kunal Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Kishore Singh Alias Kunal Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shila Devi and Anr. Vs Kishori Lal

Sitaram Mahato And Ors. Vs Gour Mahato And Ors.

Mohan Manjhi Alias Mohan Kumar Hansda Alias Lal Mohan Hansda Vs Ram Bharos Yadav and Ors.

Sanu Hansda Alias Sonu Hansda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kumar Arupanand Vs Sangita Mandal

Tarun Kanti Das Vs Smt Sumitra Suman Chaurasia and Ors.