Single judge rejected bail application of accused petitioner in FIR alleging demand and subsequent death of daughter, directing trial court to conclude trial earliest.
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. 5264 of 2019
Jitendar Kapardar @ Jitendra Kapardar ... … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath, A.P.P. ---------
05/12.09.2019 Defect(s) as pointed out by the office is ignored.
Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 12/2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 261/18.
It appears from the allegation that there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- which was fulfilled. However, subsequently the daughter of the informant died on account of burn injuries. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and it appears that out of eight charge-sheet witnesses five witnesses have been examined.
Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is accordingly rejected with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner in a bail application should be granted bail given the nature of allegations and the number of charge-sheet witnesses examined.
Jitendar Kapardar @ Jitendra Kapardar
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
