Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Subhash Kumar Thakur Alias Anup Thakur ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2017

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
                                          B.A. No.  3668 of 2017
                                                        ­­­­­
                  Subhash Kumar Thakur @ Anup Thakur @ Subhash @ Ritesh, 
                  son   of   Ram   Swaroop   Thakur,   resident   of   village­Pakri, 
                  PO&PS­Kothi, District­Gaya (Bihar)                              .... Petitioner
                                                             ­Versus­
                  The State of Jharkhand                                  ....... Opposite Party
                                                        ­­­­­­
   CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                                                        ­­­­­
                     For the Petitioner:  Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate  
                     For the State             :  Mr. Rakesh Kumar, APP 
                                                        ­­­­­            
       05/14.07

.2017   Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties  and perused the documents on record.

          The petitioner has been made an accused in Barwadih  P.S. Case No. 2 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 20 of  2013,   S.T.   No.   9   of   2014,   registered   for   offence   under  Sections 147/148/149/353/307/302/379/121 IPC, Section  27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act,  Section 17 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section  10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.         Out of 14 witnesses, 9 have already been examined. A  letter from Latehar Court, however, discloses that co­accused  namely, Indrajeet Yadav has not being produced in the court  on  dates  fixed.  This appears to be  one  of the reasons for  delay in conclusion of the trial. 

In view of the stage of trial, I am not inclined to grant  bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the prayer for grant of  bail   stands   rejected,   however,   the   trial   court   shall   ensure  presence of the witnesses on consecutive dates and presence  of   co­accused   namely,   Indrajeet   Yadav   shall   be   ensured  through video­conferencing. If necessary, video­conferencing  facility   shall   be   availed   for   ensuring   presence   of   other  co­accused persons also.

       (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)           Tanuj/­