Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2022B.A./14291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected bail for a petitioner in a dowry death case as the trial was ongoing. However, it directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within nine months and ordered the prosecution to examine the remaining nine witnesses without delay to expedite the process.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; Trial Court directed to conclude trial within nine months; Prosecution directed to produce remaining witnesses without adjournment.

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) B. A. No. 14291 of 2021

¶2

Mukesh Kumar Gupta @ Mukesh Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶4

---------

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶6

(Through : Video Conferencing)

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate. ---------

¶8

04/Dated: 04/03/2022

¶9

Heard, learned senior counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Chandana Kumari and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal.

¶10

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail in connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No. 12 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 304-B/34 I.P.C.

¶11

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected in terms of order dated 10.11.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in B.A. No.7199/2020.

¶12

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2020 and till date out of 12 witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, though petitioner is in custody and has never filed any application for discharge, even then the charge has been framed on 02.08.2021 under Sections 304-B/34 I.P.C.

¶13

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that considering the period of custody and evidence of three witnesses, which have been brought on record, this Court may enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal has opposed the prayer and has submitted that while rejecting the prayer for bail of this petitioner, this Hon'ble Court has already taken note

¶15

-2-

¶16

of submissions of the State counsel that theory propounded by the petitioner with regard to suicide is not sustainable as on the other parts of the body there is mark of injury. The deceased died within seven years of marriage and it was an unnatural death and there was demand of dowry, as such, petitioner, who is husband, may not be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal has further submitted that death has caused because of asphyxia due to hanging, as such, this Court may not enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as the trial is under progress.

¶19

However, the charge has been framed on 02.08.2021 and learned Trial Court has examined three witnesses, though the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2020.

¶20

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months as nine witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶21

The prosecution is appearing through learned counsel Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, as such, prosecution is directed to produce their witnesses before the court below without unnecessary adjournment.

¶22

The Director Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police, Latehar are directed to look into such matters, which are pending for trial.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director Prosecution as well as the Superintendent of Police, Latehar.

¶24

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶25

Jay/

Mukesh Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sports Authority of India And an Vs Union of India And Ors.

Bablu Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Chandan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Sri Ram Stones and Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Roshan Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner Department of Water Resources

Satsang through Kartik Chandra Sarkar Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board