The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's bail plea in a murder case, citing overwhelming prosecution evidence and risk of absconding. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail rejected; Trial directed to be concluded 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. 95 of 2023
Pintu Pandit … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.05 Dated- 05.05.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Birni P.S. Case No.183 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1617 of 2020 in S.T. Case No.73 of 2021 registered under sections 143/149/452/302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons murdered –Ekta Devi after trespassing to her house. It is next submitted that though earlier prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was allowed but subsequently vide order dated 22.07.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 1452 of 2021, the regular bail of the petitioner was cancelled as there was specific allegation against the petitioner of threatening the brother of the informant and against the said order dated 22.07.2022, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1452 of 2021, the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8552 of 2022 which was dismissed. It is next submitted that since all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, hence there is no chance of the petitioner of tampering with the evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there is ample evidence in the record
to bring home the charges under sections 302/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and in view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail, to avoid serving out the sentence as there is every likelihood of the petitioner being convicted in the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the evidence in the record which has come through the prosecution witnesses as also the chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
Sonu-Gunjan/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of murder and apprehending his tampering with evidence or absconding.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within six months.
How to balance the serious nature of murder charges with the petitioner's custody duration.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pintu Pandit
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
