Jharkhand High Court
Kariya Nagesiya And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 November, 2017
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 7759 of 2017
1. Kariya Nagesiya
2. Sanicharwa Nagesiya ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Addl. P.P.
02 / 02.11.17The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Bagru P.S. case no. 20 of 2017 (G.R. No. 405 of 2017 ) instituted under sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. PP for the State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and there is gap of about fourteen hours from the time of alleged assault and time when dead body was noticed by the informant. It was further submitted that there is no eye witness except the informant. It is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. Hence, the petitioners may be released on regular bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for regular bail and submitted that informant is the eyewitness of the assault and in the post-mortem report, it has been opined that the case of the death of deceased was due to hemorrhagic as well as nervousness caused due to strike by hard blunt object over the head. Hence, the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of regular bail.
Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of regular bail to the petitioners.
Learned trial court is direct to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months. In case, the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
Let a copy of this order be sent by fax to the trial court forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-