Nageshwar Mahto @ Nago @ Ranvir Da vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 February, 2021

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Nageshwar Mahto @ Nago @ Ranvir Da vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 1 February, 2021

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       B. A. No. 12110 of 2020

                  Nageshwar Mahto @ Nago @ Ranvir Da                  ...              Petitioner

                                                      Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand                       ...       Opposite Party


         Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

             For the Petitioner                  : Mr. S.K.Murty , Adv.
             For the State                       : Mr. Md. Hatim , Addl. P.P.




02 / 01.02.2021

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nawadih P.S. case no. 49 of 2009 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 302, 325, 326, 431, 440, 120B, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4 of Explosive substance Act, Sections 10/13 of UAP Act and Sections 17 (i) (ii) of CLA Act.

Perusal of the record reveals that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed in B.A. No. 9584 of 2018 with an observation that if the trial is not concluded within one year, the petitioner will at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as such, there is no fresh ground except that the petitioner has been in custody for more than one year from the date of rejection of the earlier bail application and the trial has not yet concluded.

Considering the fact that there is no fresh ground, this court is of the considered view that the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected on the same grounds as mentioned in the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in B.A. No. 9584 of 2018.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID-19 pandemic.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court