Lakhindra Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2495 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               B.A. No. 2735 of 2021
Lakhindra Gope, aged about 38 years, s/o Late Bhagirath Gope, r/o village-
Tant Nagar, Tola-Batiguttu, P.O-Tant Nagar, P.S-Manjhari, Dist.-West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand                                    ...... Petitioner
                                      Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                           ... Opposite Party
                                       -------

(Through V.C )

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP

-------

Order No. 04/Dated: 23rd July, 2021

This is second attempt by the petitioner seeking bail in connection to Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P) P.S Case No.29 of 2005 corresponding to G.R Case No. 438 of 2005 (S) (S.T. Case No.191 of 2016) which was registered under sections 364, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

By an order dated 12.09.2017 passed in B.A. No. 5285 of 2017, previous bail application of the petitioner was rejected for the following reasons:

"....Contending that name of the petitioners has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused and they are in judicial custody since 19.07.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that taking note of the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2006, the petitioners deserve grant of bail in the instant case.

Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, the learned APP opposing the prayer for grant of bail submits that the petitioners were declared absconder and about 9 years after the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2006 was delivered they were apprehended. There is direct allegation of committing murder of the diseased by pressing her neck. The trial has already commenced in the instant case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and, accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed."

Mr. Anjani Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the co-accused who faced the trial were acquitted and in the trial against the petitioner as many as 5 witnesses have died and few

have turned hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner in view of acquittal of some of the co-accused and period of his custody which is more than five years deserves grant of bail.

Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP opposing this bail application submits that out of 15 witnesses by now 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has remained absconded for about eleven years and that is the reason trial against him could not proceed.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, I am of the opinion that period of custody of the petitioner is not a relevant consideration and, accordingly, B.A. No. 2735 of 2021 is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir