This fourth India Penal Code (s. 302) and Arms Act bail application was rejected as the plea of delay was not considered tenable on merit. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude within six months.
The fifth bail application is rejected; the trial court is directed to expedite the trial to conclude 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. 1253 of 2022
Naro Yadav .... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. --------
04/ 02.08.2022 The fourth bail application has been filed on behalf of the above named applicant with a prayer to release on bail in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2014, corresponding to S.T. No. 63 of 2016, registered under Sections 147/148/149/341/364/302/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 17 (i), (ii) of the C.L.A. Act, pending in the Court of the District Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first Bail Application of the applicant was rejected in B.A.No. 2768 of 2016 vide order dated 16.05.2016; second Bail Application of applicant was rejected in B.A.No.586 of 2017 vide order dated 27.01.2017; third Bail Application of the applicant was rejected in B.A.No. 5772 of 2018 vide order dated 12.10.2018 and fourth Bail Application of the applicant was rejected in B.A.No. 4578 of 2020 vide order dated 16.10.2020 and the new ground for fifth Bail Application is that the charge has been framed in the year 2016 but after a lapse of more than five years the trial has not been concluded and out of twelve witnesses only ten has been examined till date and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future and the applicant has been languishing in Jail since 12.12.2015 for more than six years. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant.
The new ground raised by the learned for the applicant is not tenable for the fifth Bail Application. More so, the first Bail Application has been rejected on merit.
In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, the fifth Bail Application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
As prayed, the court-below is directed to expedite the trial preferably to conclude within six months.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in conclusion of trial and extended jail custody warrants the grant of bail.
Whether the bail application was fit for acceptance given the earlier rejection on merits.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Naro Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
SUBHASH CHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
