The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petitioner's regular bail application despite delayed trial and false implication claims, noting the bail was earlier rejected on merit.
Regular 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. 3891 of 2018
Pradeep Tiwary @ Pradeep Kumar Tiwary @ Pradip Tiwary
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P. -----
06/20.07.2018 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 302//307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with S.T. No. 365 of 2016, arising out of Town P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 868 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2017 in B.A. No. 704 of 2017. Again, vide order dated 09.02.2018 in B.A. No. 9589 of 2017, another bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the place of occurrence claimed by the informant has been found to be wrong during the investigation by the Investigation Officer. So far as the trial of the present case is concerned, only two charge-sheet witnesses have been examined so far. P.W.-2 was examined on 24.03.2018 and thereafter, though several dates have been given in the trial, yet no other charge-sheet witness has been examined. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.06.2016 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail submits that the petitioner’s bail application was earlier rejected by this Court on merit. The charge against the petitioner has
been framed on 16.01.2018 and, therefore, 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. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same expeditiously by ensuring the presence of remaining charge-sheet witnesses without giving unnecessary adjournment in the case.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and Arms Act, should be granted regular bail after repeated failures and delays in trial.
Pradeep Tiwary @ Pradeep Kumar Tiwary @ Pradip Tiwary
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
