Two bail applications regarding dacoity allegations were heard via video conference. The court rejected the bail prayer for both petitioners and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, observing COVID-19 precautions.
Bail prayer rejected; trial to be concluded within six 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. 4773 of 2020
Kamlesh Nayak … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 4777 of 2020
Roshan Nayak … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Sinha, Addl. P.P. : Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate
------
Order No.04 Dated- 07.12.2020
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.162 of 2018 (G.R. No.479 of 2019) registered under sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in committing dacoity of a truck and they have been identified in T.I. Parade by the Khalasi of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the co-accused persons have been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.06.2020 and 15.06.2020 in B.A. Nos. 3143 and 2956 of 2020 respectively. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 17.06.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that co-accused- Jitendra Kumar @
Jitendra Kumar Turi was not put to T.I. Parade and perusal of the bail order of Chandan Turi reveals that he was found loitering near the place of occurrence but from paragraph no.133 of the case diary, it is crystal clear that the petitioners were identified in the T.I. Parade to be the person who were involved in dacoity and there is no material that the petitioners were loitering near the place of occurrence therefore, the allegation against Chandan Turi and Jitendra Kumar Turi stand in different footing than these petitioners and in view the overwhelming evidence in the record, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of committing dacoity and also that they have been identified in T.I. Parade, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioners and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be admitted to bail in connection with the charge of dacoity.
Whether impugned acquittal orders should be quashed.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within six months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamlesh Nayak
Roshan Nayak
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
