Dismissed

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2022B.A./2110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding serious offences under various acts, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the prayer, citing prior rejection, criminal antecedents, and nature of allegations. The Court directed the State to ensure witness production and trial expedited.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; State directed to ensure witness production; Trial expedited; Petitioner to renew prayer after nine months.

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom Vs the… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B. A. No. 2110 of 2022

¶4

Manjhlu Manjhi @ Manjhlu Hembram @ Hembrom … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

05/10.06.2022

¶10

Heard Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

Heard Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 64/2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 1269/2000, for alleged offence registered under Sections 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act, Section 3/5 of Explosive Substantive Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 13 of the U.A.P. Act, said to be pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Giridih.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2018 and therefore, he has renewed his prayer for bail. He submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 19.03.2021 in B.A. No. 6100/2020. The learned counsel submits that no witness has been examined so far before the learned court below. The learned counsel submits that considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the instant case mentioning therein that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and the present case is of the

¶15

¶16

year 2000 and the petitioner was declared absconder and ultimately, he was apprehended in the year 2018. The learned counsel has also submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier vide order dated 19.03.2021 and on account of COVID-19 situation, there is no progress in the trial. He submits that the opposite party would ensure prompt production of witnesses before the learned court below.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit earlier in B.A. No. 6100/2020 on 19.03.2021; the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature ; he was declared absconder and the fact that there has been alleged recovery of Naxal Literature, pamphlets, banners, khakhi clothes and live cartridges from the house of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶18

However, the opposite party-State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses before the learned court below and the learned court below is also directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after nine months from today and his prayer will be considered depending upon progress of the trial.

¶19

Learned counsel for the opposite party-State is also directed to communicate this order to the concerned officer who is directed to take appropriate steps for prompt production of witnesses.

¶20

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Mukul/-

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Birbal Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arti Devi Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Smt Moti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education Deptt