Single Judge rejected the first regular bail application of the petitioner accused in an IPC case. The court held that the trial is in progress and the accused has criminal antecedents. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.
Prayer for bail dismissed; Trial concluded within one year.
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.2965 of 2019
Vikram Sharma @ Vikaram Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. For the State : APP
C.A.V. on 29/11/2019 Pronounced on 03/12/2019
The petitioner is accused in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.240 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.2778/2007(S) registered under Sections 302, 34, 120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
02. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for granting regular bail being B.A. No.10308/18 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2019 by this Court and this is the second bail application.
03. The present case has been registered on the basis of a written report given by informant, Tapan Das, Manager of Sri leathers on 02.11.2007 at about 8.55 A.M while he along with other staff was waiting for his Proprietor Ashish Dey outside the shop, in the meanwhile one person came and informed that Ashish Dey was lying near triangular crossing near jeevandeep Shot at Sakchi, Pururlia Road and some one has opened fire on him. After receiving the said information he along with other staff went towards the place of occurrence and found that one constable was taking the injured on one auto rickshaw towards Golchhakar. Informant along with others also boarded on the auto and proceeded for TMH, where doctor declared him dead. He came to know that two unknown miscreants came on a motorcycle and committed murder of his Proprietor Ashish Dey with gun shot. Hence this case.
-02-
04. The present bail application has been filed on 26.03.2019 and thereafter matter was listed on 24.04.2019. On that date case diary, postmortem report and inquest report was called for. On 16.09.2019 Status Report was called for from the court concerned and matter was directed to be listed on 18.10.2019. Thereafter several adjournments were given.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of arguments submitted that the supplementary chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner on 27.09.2018 under Section 302/34/120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Further submitted that the petitioner was arrested from Uttrakhand in the month of April 2017 in connection with another case in which he was acquitted from the court below and he was remanded in this case on 02.07.2018. Thereafter keeping period of detention and also nothing material against him for committing the said offence.
06. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
07. The required case diary, postmortem report, inquest report and Status report has been received.
From perusal of the Status Report dated 01.10.2019, submitted by learned Addl. Sessions JudgeIV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur which reveals that the final form/supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted on 29.09.2018, thereafter cognizance has been taken on 29.09.2018. Charge has been framed on 23.09.2019 under Section 302, 120B of the IPC and 27 of Arms Act. Number of witnesses cited in final form are 09, but not a single witness has been examined till date. Expected date of conclusion of trial is within One Year.
Further, from perusal of the supplementary case diary especially paragraph no.434 this fact has come that the petitioner expert in computer and used computer in order to commit crime and he is one of the member of Akhilesh Singh Gang and the petitioner have criminal
-03-
antecedent.
08. Under such circumstances and in view of the fact that the trial is in progress, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
Further, the Trial court is directed to conclude the trial within the period of One year from the date of production/receipt a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the period of One year, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
Fahim/
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail in the accused retainer case.
Whether the respondent is entitled to expedite the trial within one year.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikram Sharma
The State of Jharkhand
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
