Progress of bail hearing; court declines to reconsider rejected prayer given nature of offence and trial expansion; remits matter to trial court for expedition.
Bail prayer rejected; trial to be concluded within nine 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. 10429 of 2022
---------
Birsingh Munduiya @ Bir Singh Munduiya ... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
---------
05/18.11.2022 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mohua Palit, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 7219 of 2021.
It appears that out of sixteen charge-sheet witnesses, six witnesses have been examined as yet.
In view of the nature of the offence and the fact that the trial is progressing, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail the petitioner which stands rejected once again with a direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months from today.
Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the concerned court.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite the earlier rejection and pending examination of six out of sixteen witnesses.
Birsingh Munduiya @ Bir Singh Munduiya
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
