Jharkhand High Court
Asha Di @ Kiran Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 25 February, 2021
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.10199 of 2020
Asha Di @ Kiran Ganjhu ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
03/25.02.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No.86 of 2014 (S.T. No.16 of 2017) corresponding to G.R. No.1523 of 2014, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 341, 342, 307, 302, 353, 333, 427, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Sections 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act, under Sections 10 and 13 of the U.A.P. Act and under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2016. Out of 26 charge-sheeted witnesses only 12 witnesses have been examined. On the ground of period of custody and the fact that some other co-accused persons have been acquitted and some have been enlarged on bail, the prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and as such she does not deserve bail.
Considering the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/-