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

Md. Manjar Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2023

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  B.A. No. 6756 of 2023
                                   ---------
          Md. Manjar Khan                             ..... Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                     ..... Opposite Party(s)
                                   ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP

---------

04/Dated: 17th October, 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Chauparan, P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 [S.T. Case No. 285(A) of 2008], for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 332, 307, 353, 452, 427, 504, 506 & 379 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, later on Section 302 IPC has been added, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-IV, Hazaribagh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been apprehended on 07.04.2023 for a case registered in the year 2001. He further submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused of the same incident along with the petitioner but the case was split up as the petitioner went to some other place and he has been declared absconder. He further submits that the informant of this case has died and since the charge-sheet has been submitted there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, as such he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the co-accused has been convicted for the same offence in a separate trial.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case that the co-accused has been convicted for the same offence, as such I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court shall take all endeavour to conclude the trial of this petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months.

` (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/