Bail application by an accused facing offences under IPC and Arms Act. Court rejected prayer for regular bail, noting no fresh grounds beyond custody length. Directed trial court to expedite proceedings.
Prayer for bail rejected. Trial court directed to expedite trial without undue delay.
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. 10968 of 2020
Praveen Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
-----
04/19.02.2021 The present bail application is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/504/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with S.T. No. 426 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail applications of the petitioner were earlier rejected twice by this Court. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily for the reason that pursuant to filing of the chargesheet and framing of charge against the petitioner, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.01.2019 i.e., more than two years and at least considering the length of judicial custody, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the bail applications of the petitioner were earlier rejected twice on merit. The petitioner has not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of his prayer for bail except the length of judicial custody. Hence, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of regular bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same without any undue delay.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the length of judicial custody and absence of prosecution witness examination.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Praveen Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
