Petitioner challenged the rejection of his bail application, arguing sufficient custody duration and hostile witness testimony warranted regular bail. Court found no fresh ground for reconsideration.
Prayer for bail stands rejected; 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.7411 of 2018
Suiya Toppo. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. .......... Opp. Party.
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State : None -----
Order No.03 Date: 14.12.2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act; and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 21st November, 2016 in B.A. No.7122 of 2016. 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 30th October, 2015 and charge has been framed against him on 22nd September, 2016. However, only one witness has been examined in the trial so far, who has been declared hostile. At least considering the length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
No one appears on behalf of the State.
It appears that vide order dated 21st November, 2016, the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit. The petitioner has not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of his bail application and as such I see no reason to reconsider his bail application.
Accordingly, petitioner’s prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, the Trial court is directed to expedite the trial without any undue delay.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the petitioner should be reconsidered in light of the length of judicial custody and lack of fresh grounds.
Suiya Toppo
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
