In a bail application under Section 366A IPC, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's plea for regular bail after over two years of judicial custody, citing lack of progress in the trial and victim identification evidence.
Prayer for regular bail rejected and petitioner's custody maintained.
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.6516 of 2021
Chhote Lal Marandi @ Chote Lal Marandi .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. .......... Opp. party.
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P. -----
Order No.04 Date: 13.08.2021
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6th August, 2019 in B.A. No.6690 of 2019. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail primarily for the reason that he is in judicial custody since 10th January, 2019 and there has been no positive progress in the trial. At least considering the length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP, while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail, submits that the co-victim of the offence, who has been examined in the trial as P.W.6, has identified the petitioner and co-accused- Sitaram Mirdha and has clearly deposed that Sitaram Mirdha committed rape upon her, whereas the petitioner committed rape upon the victim. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of regular bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with Special (POCSO) Case no.13 of 2019, arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.43 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. no.482 of 2018.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s prayer for bail stands rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused in a Section 366A IPC case in judicial custody since 2019, is entitled to regular bail due to lack of trial progress?
Chhote Lal Marandi @ Chote Lal Marandi
The State of Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
