The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months without unnecessary adjournments, criticizing the lower court for staying proceedings. Consequently, bail was rejected as the petitioner must face trial.
Direction to the Trial Court to conclude trial within two months; Bail 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. 422 of 2018
Kaitabuddin Ansari
… Petitioner
-versusThe State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
3 / 27.02.2018 Status report was called for from the Trial Court about the stage of trial. The same has been received.
2. District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj has reported that S.T. No.296 of 2017 has been amalgamated with S.T. No.129 of 2017 vide order dated 12.09.2017. He further informs this Court that against the said order dated 12.09.2017, a petition has been filed on behalf of the prosecution on 21.09.2017, showing intention for moving the Hon’ble Court against the Court’s order. It has been further mentioned in the report that status of the said case pending before the Hon’ble Court, has not been filed by the prosecution inspite of several adjournments granted in the case. Further, it appears from the report that the Trial Court is still waiting for an order from this Court.
3. The report also gives an impression that there is no order of stay of further proceedings of the Trial Court by this Court. The report also suggests that “ several adjournments ” have been granted by the Trial Court to the prosecution. The order of amalgamation was passed on 12.09.2017, and as per the report, I can presume that the Court is still waiting for an order from the High Court, i.e., waiting for long five months. Further, the report suggests that even the case number has not been provided by the prosecution. In that case waiting for any order from the higher Court is absolutely not warranted. When there is no stay order, the Court below should have proceeded with the trial. It was not necessary for the Court to grant “ several adjournments ”, that too, on a vague application. This means the Court below has himself stayed the trial and granted relief to a party, which is yet to be given by the High Court.
4. Further, it is apparent from the report that out of 10 (ten) witnesses, 7 (seven) witnesses had already been examined in this case
-: 2 :-
when the Court below has stayed the proceedings on the plea that he will receive an order from the High Court on some day.
5. This approach of the Trial Court is not at all appreciated. 6. The Trial Court is directed to take all possible steps so that the trial can be concluded by him within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments.
7. Keeping in view the direction which has been given to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within two months, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Kaitabuddin Ansari, in connection with Chhatarpur Police Station Case No.113 of 2016 (G.R. No.1781 of 2016) corresponding to Session Trial No.129 of 2017, is hereby rejected.
8. This application stands dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court through fax immediately.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Anjali-Kumar/Cp-03
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court is permitted to stay proceedings awaiting a High Court order when no stay has been granted.
Whether the trial court should proceed to conclude the trial within two months.
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending the conclusion of the trial.
Kaitabuddin Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
