Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Ganjhu Alias Sushil Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 May, 2017
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 1954 of 2017
Sushil Ganjhu @ Sushil Bhuinya ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S.Singh
For the State: Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
-----
07/15.05.2017Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 332/ 333/ 353/ 307/ 302/ 395/ 427 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the police vehicle was attacked by the extremists in which three police personnels were killed and two police personnels got injured. Co-accused Bahura Turi, who is facing trial in S.T. No. 298/2013, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2016 passed in B.A. No. 9680/2016. Co-accused Ratan Sahu, who is facing trial in S.T. No. 212/2014, has also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2017 passed in B.A. No. 10803/2016. In both the Sessions Trials, the informant was examined, but he neither named those co-accused nor could identify them in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the statement of one of the injured witnesses, namely, Raiman Tirkey was also recorded in S.T. No. 212/2014 in which he has deposed that during the alleged occurrence, the miscreants had covered their faces and therefore he could not identify them. The petitioner is facing trial in S.T. No. 163/2016. Though charge has been framed against the petitioner on 10.11.2016, yet there is no positive progress in the trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.04.2015 and therefore he may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail. On perusal of the status report dated 15.04.2017 regarding the stage of the trial submitted by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla, it appears that out of eleven charge sheet witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.04.2015 and only one witness has been examined so far in the trial, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla in connection with S.T. No. 163/2016, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 06/2013 (G.R. No. 310/2013), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the Court, failing which the Trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)