Wakil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s prayers for bail were earlier rejected thrice by this Court on merit. Firstly, vide order dated 06.02.2017 passed in B.A. No. 9509/2016, secondly, vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed in B.A. No. 5750/2017 and thirdly vide order dated 24.11.2017 passed in B.A. No. 8428/2017. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.08.2016 and the trial of the case has not yet been concluded. At least considering the length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶15

No one appears on behalf of the State.

¶16

Considering the fact that the prayers for bail of the petitioner were earlier rejected thrice by this Court on merit, I see no reason to reconsider the petitioner’s prayer for bail in connection with S.T. No. 168/2017, arising out of Paton P.S Case No. 37/2016 (G.R. No. 646/2016).

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶18

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶19

Satish/-

Wakil Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wakil Ansari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nancy Kanak Lata Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anadi Nath Swarnkar Vs The State Ofjharkhand And Anr.

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak Vs Urban Development Department

Satyendra Oraon And Ors. Vs Labour

Suiya Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bartu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand