The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's bail application in a murder and Arms Act case due to the serious nature of allegations and risk of absconding. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six 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. 2337 of 2021
Satya Narayan Tiwary @ Satya Narayan Tiwari
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.03 Dated- 09.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.161 of 2013 arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.99 of 2010 (G.R. No.507 of 2010) registered under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has shot dead the deceased- Dharmendra Dixit @ Badsah Dixit by firing on his head from the pistol. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and co-accused-Ramjee Tiwary who faced the trial has since been acquitted and the co-accused-Gyandeo Tiwari has been admitted to regular bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the coaccused-Ramjee Tiwary and Gyandeo Tiwari stand in different footing than that of the petitioner and there is direct allegation against the petitioner of shooting at the deceased and the informant is the eye-witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit
case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a murder case involving serious allegations.
Whether the trial should be expedited and concluded within six months.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satya Narayan Tiwary
The State of Jharkhand
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
