High Court declined to grant regular bail to the petitioner in a hit-and-run/assault case involving murder and arms charges, citing the advanced stage of trial and criminal antecedents. The Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings within a year.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial within one year.
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.8362 of 2020
Patrik Toppo … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Shankar Dayal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
04/23.02.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Spt. S.T. Case No.115 of 2014 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.06 of 2011, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge-II, Gumla.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2017. Some witnesses are still to be examined. It has been submitted that deposition of the informant is contradictory in the split up trial. On the basis of above facts, prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submission has been advanced that the trial is in advance stage and further 28 criminal antecedents have been reported against this petitioner and as such he does not deserve bail.
Perused the record and considering the material available on record, as the trial is in advance stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible, preferably within a year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the trial is in an advanced stage and existence of criminal antecedents?
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial considering the delay?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Patrik Toppo
State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
