Jharkhand High Court
Jai Prakash Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 8500 of 2020
Jai Prakash Shukla, S/o Shiv Kumar Shukla
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
05/12.02.2021:
1. Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda,
Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in
custody since 15.10.2017 in connection with S. T. Case No.
478/2018 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 240/2017 (G.R.
Case No. 5601/2017) for alleged offence registered under Sections
307/353/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-
b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act, now said to be pending in the
court of learned A.J.C.-XV-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that although
the charge has already been framed, but only one witness has
been examined so far. He also submits that earlier the bail
application of the petitioner was rejected twice by this Court vide
order dated 16.07.2019 in B.A. No. 2003/2019 and thereafter on
29.11.2019 in B.A. No. 9409/2019. He has also submitted that the
co-accused, namely, Bijendra Kumar Yadav was also
apprehended with arms along with the petitioner, who has been
enlarged on bail by the court of learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi as back as on 21.02.2018 in B.P. No. 269/2018 and
accordingly, the petitioner should also be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784 to
submit that delay in trial should be taken into consideration while
considering the bail application.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State, on
the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the
bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on merit twice
earlier by this Court and there are serious allegations against the
petitioner and the petitioner has two more criminal cases of
serious nature against him, one is of the year 2015 and another is
of the year 2017. He also submits that due to COVID-19
pandemic, trial could not proceed, but considering the
seriousness of offence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds
that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice
by this Court and the petitioner was apprehended on spot with
arms and the petitioner also has criminal antecedents of senior
nature. The trial has already commenced and on account of
COVID-19 the trial has not progressed, but, that by itself does not
entitle the petitioner for bail considering the seriousness of
offence. So far as the bail application of co-accused, namely,
Bijendra Kumar Yadav in B.P. No. 269/2018 by the court below is
concerned, one of the grounds for grant of bail to him was that he
did not have any criminal antecedent.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and
the seriousness of offence against the petitioner and direct
allegation made against him, this Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court
below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/-
