Dismissed

Manoj Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2021B.A./2299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by Manoj Sahu in connection with cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substance Act, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the prayer. The Court held that bail should not be granted as the trial had commenced in an advanced stage with five witnesses examined and the petitioner had previously been denied bail twice.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.

Manoj Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2299 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Manoj Sahu

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ... ..... Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. ---

¶8

Through Video Conferencing

¶9

¶10

07/10.09.2021 Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2018 in connection with Kisko P.S. Case No. 41/2018 corresponding to G.R. No.16/19, S.T. Case No.14/2019, registered under Sections 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and under Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and charge has been framed under Section ¾ of Explosive Substance Act, now pending in the court of AJC-IV, Lohardaga.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of custody. He submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with the present case since 12.11.2018. He submits that some of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

¶14

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that as per the order dated 26.06.2020 passed in B.A. No.10691 of 2019, trial has already commenced and it has been recorded in the order dated 26.06.2020 that out of eight charge sheeted witnesses, five have already been examined. He further submits that he undertakes to produce the

¶15

¶16

witnesses before the learned court below as and when the date is fixed by the learned court below for production of the witnesses.

¶17

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner coupled with the fact that that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected twice, firstly on 06.08.2019 and secondly, on 26.06.2020 and the trial has already commenced and is in advance stage , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

7. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.

¶19

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/E-mail”.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Saurav/-

Manoj Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sahu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Singh Alias Kalu Vs State of Jharkhand

Ratanlal Paramanik and Another Vs the State of Jharkhand and Another

Babmani Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Mumtaz Miya Alias Mumtaz Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sadanand Das Vs State of Jharkhand