In a bail application under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Arms Act, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the prayer for regular bail at an advanced stage of trial, though directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within four months.
Prayer for regular bail rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within four 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. 12005 of 2020
.... Mobin Ansari @ Momin Ansari .… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
.... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.R. Ravi Das, APP
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
03/03.03.2021
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with (S.T. No. 43 of 2018) Borio Mirzachouki P.S. Case No.368 of 2015 (G.R. No.890 of 2015), registered under Sections 302/ 120B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.11.2017. It has been further submitted that except the I.O. and the Medical Officer, all charge sheeted witnesses have been examined and they have stated nothing about the involvement of this petitioner in the crime. After 18.11.2019, no witness has been examined. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.
Considering the advance stage of trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail at an advanced stage of trial.
Whether the trial court should expedite the conclusion of the trial.
Whether the charge-sheeted witnesses' failure to implicate the petitioner warrants bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mobin Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
