Jharkhand High Court
Indrajeet Yadav @ Indrajeet Jee @ Shayam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand. .......... ... on 23 February, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.270 of 2018
-----
Indrajeet Yadav @ Indrajeet Jee @ Shayam Ji @ Kapil Yadav @ Pappu @ Kapil Kumar. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. .......... Opposite Party.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : APP
-----
04/23.02.2018: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 504, 121, 302, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act; Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act; and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and Section 13 of U.A.P. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16th March, 2017 in B.A. No.5739 of 2016. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police has not collected any cogent evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There has been no recovery of arm and ammunition from the possession of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 16 th September, 2013 and, therefore, at least, considering the length of judicial custody, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned APP, while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail, submits that there are several criminal antecedents against the petitioner. In the present case, a police official was killed in a landmine blast and several others sustained injury in the said incident. He further submits that if the petitioner is released from judicial custody, he may not cooperate in the trial and, therefore, he may not be given the privilege of regular bail.
-2-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with S.T. No.81 of 2014, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No.51 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2010(S).
Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/