High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail applications of two petitioners charged with murder under Sections 302/201/34 IPC 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 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. 5980 of 2020
Chandan Prasad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 5669 of 2020 ------ Laxman Sao @ Laxman Prasad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.03 Dated- 05.01.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.23 of 2020 registered under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the co-accused persons have murdered the deceased –Dashrath Sao. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have no connection with the alleged offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.Ps. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that beside the confessional statement of the co-accused –Basanti Devi and Chandan Prasad there is an eyewitness in the shape of twelve year old son of the deceased whose statement appears in the paragraph 50 of the case diary, besides there is evidence of other witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioners absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioners 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/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners charged with murder.
Whether the trial should be concluded within six months.
Whether the hearing should be conducted via video conferencing.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandan Prasad
Laxman Sao
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
