The High Court dismissed the petitioner's fiat application for regular bail in a case involving murder and arms charges. The Court noted the trial was concluding and refused bail despite the petitioner's custody duration and lack of eye-witnesses.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in custody.
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. 3458 of 2018
Md. Parvez @ Md. Parwez … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. -----
04/06.07.2018 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with S.T. No. 132 of 2017, arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 251 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 5170 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2017 in B.A. No. 753 of 2017. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.09.2016. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and it is the case of circumstantial evidence. At least considering the 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 it would be evident from the report submitted by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi vide letter dated 19.05.2018 that out of 11 charge-sheet witnesses, 9 witnesses have already been examined. Since the trial is at concluding stage, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, hence, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
Manish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner who has been in judicial custody since 19.09.2016, given the trial is at the concluding stage and based on circumstantial evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Parvez @ Md. Parwez
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
