In a bail application, the High Court allowed the petitioner's request for release on bail, directing him to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition of cooperating in the expeditious trial.
Directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.
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. 4172 of 2017
Sanu Hansda @ Sonu Hansda ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……….Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. -----------
08/Dated:07.02.2018
The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 147/148/149/364/302/201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.09.2016 in B.A. No.4083 of 2016 and direction was given to conclude the trial within one year. It is submitted that the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail as the other co-accused namely, Rasik Hansda, Sukar Hansda @ Sukra Hansda and Hemlal Manjhi on similar allegations have been granted bail in B.A. no.5710 of 2017, B.A. no. 5111 of 2017 respectively, vide order dated 13.10.2017. It is argued that despite lapse of more than one year, the trial has not been concluded as yet and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as that of the other co-accused.
Learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is allegation that the petitioner along with other co-accused had given lathi blows on the informant’s husband in the panchayat, whereafter the deceased died.
Heard. Considering the fact that the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as that of the other co-accused who have been granted bail accordingly, 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih, in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No.38 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1998 of 2005, (S.T. No. 62 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.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Tarun/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the similar footing of his case compared to co-accused already granted bail.
Sanu Hansda @ Sonu Hansda
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
