Petitioners, accused in a murder case, prayed for regular bail citing custody since 2016 and trial inactivity. Their bail application was rejected as no fresh grounds were shown. Additional direction was issued for the Trial Court to conclude the trial within four months.
Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to conclude trial within four months.
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.3258 of 2019
-VersusThe State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P. -----
Order No.04 Date: 09.08.2019
The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bail applications of the petitioners have been earlier rejected twice by this Court. By way of present bail application, the petitioners have renewed their prayer for bail primarily for the reason that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 3rd June, 2016 and there is no progress in the trial. It is further submitted that last witness was examined on 26th May, 2017 and, thereafter, no witness has been examined in the trial. As such, the petitioners may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP while opposing the petitioners’ prayer for bail submits that their bail applications have earlier been rejected by this Court twice. The petitioners have not made out any fresh ground to reconsider their prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with S.T. Case no.223 of 2016, arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.35 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.253(S) of 2009.
-2-
Accordingly, the petitioners’ prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, considering the fact that no witness has been
examined since 26th May, 2017, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within four months from today.
Sanjay/
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for regular bail should be allowed when the petitioners are in judicial custody since 3rd June, 2016 with no progress in trial.
Whether the Trial Court should be directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within four months due to lack of witnesses examined since 26th May, 2017.
Dadu Boipai; Tiyung Gundua; Bato Lugun
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
