This Court rejected the application for regular bail for the petitioner in a case involving IPC 306 and 302, noting a prior rejection and serious allegations. The Court directed the lower court to expedite the trial.
The application for regular bail was dismissed, but the court below was directed to expedite the 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 9896 of 2019
Vikash Tiwary … … Petitioner
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Vipul Divya, Advocate
04/17.01.2020 :
1. Heard Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Vipul Divya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
3. This bail application has been filed for the following reliefs: - “That the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in connection with Adityapur(R.I.T) P.S. Case No. 411/14 corresponding to G.R. No. 1188/14 & S.T No. 124/19 u/s 498(A)/326/307/34 of I.P.C & sec 302 of I.P.C has been added subsequently after death of informant, however the police submitted the charge sheet of informant, however the police submitted the charge sheet u/s 498(A), 306 and 34 of I.P.C vide charge sheet dated 31/5/19 against the petitioner and now the case is pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella.
And/or
Pass such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the bail application of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court in B.A. No. 6246 of 2019 vide order dated 17.08.2019. He submits that at the time of rejection of the bail
2
application, it could not be pointed out that the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the case of the prosecution has been substantially diluted during investigation and there is no material against the petitioner. He also refers to the order dated 16.10.2019 passed in B.A. No. 5260 of 2019 and submits that the co-accused, namely, Urmila Devi i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased, has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and accordingly, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer for bail has referred to the statement of Vaishnavi Tiwary daughter of the deceased recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that the petitioner was the brotherin-law of the deceased and specific allegation has been made against the petitioner. She submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. She further submits that the First Information Report is of the year 2014 and the petitioner has been absconding and accordingly, the trial of the husband of the deceased was separated and considering this aspect of the matter also, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. However, she does not have any objection if any direction is issued to the learned court below to expedite the trial.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in B.A. No. 6246 of 2019. This Court is of the considered view that offence under Section 306 of IPC is also a serious offence and in view of the statement of daughter of the deceased recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. and mentioned in the
3
case-diary, there appears to be direct allegation against the petitioner.
7. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the fact remains that the bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected vide order dated 17.08.2019 in B.A. NO. 6246 of 2019 by this Court.
8. However, the learned court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving serious offences under IPC 306 and 302.
Whether the direction to expedite the trial at the court below is appropriate.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikash Tiwary
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
