Jharkhand High Court
Karan Rout @ Karan Jaishwal vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 25 June, 2021
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 11410 of 2020
Karan Rout @ Karan Jaishwal ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. Through Video Conferencing 7/25.06.2021
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019, S.T. No. 192 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Deoghar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2019. He further submits that there were a number of accused in the present case and the case of the petitioner was split up. The Investigating Officer had submitted supplementary charge sheet No. 165 of 2019 dated 31.03.2019 against the petitioner keeping the investigation pending against a few other accused persons. The supplementary record was committed to the court of Sessions on 22.05.2019 and thereafter Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2019 was initiated against the petitioner and now the case is pending. The charge has been framed in this case on 18.06.2019 and the case is now pending before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Deoghar. He submits that till today, no 2 witnesses have been examined in the trial of the petitioner. However, in the other sessions trial arising out of the same F.I.R., certain witnesses have been examined who have turned hostile, but admittedly the informant of the case has not been examined even in the said case. The learned counsel submits that as there is no progress in the trial and the petitioner is in custody since long, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He also submits that the co-accused who are facing the trial in the other session trial arising out of the same case have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. Someshwar Roy while opposing the prayer submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the case of the petitioner was rejected on merit twice therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. He also submits that on account of COVID-19 situation, the trial of the petitioner has not commenced. However, the learned counsel for the State ensures that all endeavour will be made for production of witnesses before the learned court below and no unnecessary adjournment will be sought for by the prosecution as and when the learned court below is ready to examine the witnesses.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/