Kundan Hazra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1726 Jhar

                                    -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 554 of 2020

     Kundan Hazra                         ....   Appellant

                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Sanju Toppo
                                                 ......   Respondents
                          --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State :Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P For Resp.No.2 :Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

---------

06/Dated: 08.04.2021

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum Spl. Judge SC/ST Dhanbad rejecting the prayer for grant of bail of the appellant in connection with SC/ST Case No. 304 of 2018 arising out of Barwadda P.S. Case No.192 of 2018 registered under Sections 376D, 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section of 3(i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier the bail of the appellant was rejected and he has renewed the prayer for bail in view of the mandates of Section 14(3) which stipulates that the trial of the accused should be concluded within two months whereas in the instant case till date the trial has not been concluded, and petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2018. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition of victim, examined as PW-2, and submitted that her testimony is replicate with contradictions hence her testimony is unreliable. PW-8, the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that neither the victim nor the witnesses have taken the name of the appellant. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to make out the complicity of the appellant in the crime.

3. Learned APP, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, have submitted that by a reasoned and speaking order this Court, on the basis of the materials in the case diary and on consideration of the confessional statement of co-accused Paritosh Pandey had rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant and all the witnesses have been examined during trial and the case is fixed for arguments.

4. Heard. It appears from the impugned order that charge was framed on 05.03.2019 and all the witnesses have been

examined but due to ensuing pandemic the arguments could not be concluded. In the given circumstances the court below is directed to hear the arguments of the parties either through video conferencing or in physical court. It is made clear that if the case is not decided within one month from the date of receipt/production of the order, the court below shall release the appellant on bail on the terms and conditions which it deems fit and proper to impose.

3. With the aforesaid direction the appeal stands disposed off.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

Tarun/