Allowed

Sunny Verma Alias Raj Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Oct 2020Cr.Rev./547/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court rejected the petitioner's bail application. The court observed that a previous order required examination of the injured before considering bail, which had not been done despite the petitioner's long detention since 2018.

What did the court decide?

The instant criminal revision is rejected; trial is expedited; liberty to renew bail prayer is granted after examination of the injured.

Sunny Verma Alias Raj Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Revision Jurisdiction)

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 547 of 2020

¶3

Sunny Verma @ Raj Verma ….. Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

….. Opp. Party

¶6

---------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

¶9

--------- 03/Dated: 13/10/2020

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rohit Agarwal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 4,5(e) 8, 9 (i) & 9(ii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 13.07.2020, have not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and has prayed that the application may be heard.

¶11

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the instant application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) within 30 days after the physical court starts.

¶12

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defect(s).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner, Sunny Verma @ Raj Verma has prayed through his father and natural guardian for his release in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 177/2018, for the offence registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379, 34 I.P.C, which was earlier refused by this Court on 29.03.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.1619/2019 with an observation that petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after examination of the injured.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till date injured has not been examined, but petitioner is in custody since 31.08.2018 and trial is also not progressive.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has

¶16

-2-

¶17

submitted that observation given by this Court has not been complied with, as such, juvenile may not be released.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, as the injured has not been examined, this Court is not inclined to release the juvenile on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is hereby rejected. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the juvenile is in Remand Home since 31.08.2018.

¶20

However, the juvenile has been given liberty to renew his prayer for bail through his father/guardian after examination of the injured.

¶21

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶22

Sunil-Jay/

Sunny Verma Alias Raj Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Verma Alias Raj Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit Vs Sabita Devi

Ms Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Vice President Saikat Sarkar Vs Merry Soreng

Ms Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Vice President Saikat Sarkar Vs Merry Dungdung

Binay Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akshay Kumar Alias Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand