Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Saw vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.540 of 2025
-----
Dharmendra Kumar Saw, son of Late Shivji Saw, R/o Village
Bhadesh Anchal, P.O. + P.S. Bhojpur, District Bhojpur, Bihar-
802206. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB. ... ... Opposite Party.
-----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria, Lakra, Advocate
Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate
Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate
For the NCB : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
Ms. Sharda Kumari, AC to P.P.
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
-----
08/ 19.02.2025
The petitioner renews his prayer for grant of bail.
2. Be it noted that prayer for bail of the petitioner was
earlier rejected twice on merits by this Court vide orders dated
25.02.2022 and 15.12.2023 passed in B.A. Nos.1311 of 2022 and
7720 of 2023, respectively.
3. The order sheets of the Trial Court has been placed
before me.
4. The last date fixed in this case by the Trial Court was
24.01.2025, when one Amit Kumar Bhagat, was examined in part
and the case was adjourned. The next date fixed for further
evidence of Amit Kumar Bhagat, is 18.03.2025 and 19.03.2025. The
Trial Court merely noted that due to paucity of time, the
examination is deferred.
5. This Court fails to understand that in spite of the order
passed by this Court to conclude the examination and evidence of
the witness on the same date when the witness is produced before
the Court and his examination in chief has already been done, why
the Trial Court has adjourned this case.
6. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2023 in B.A. No.12960
of 2022 (Jishu Tudu Vs. the State of Jharkhand), had held that when
the examination in chief of the witness is already concluded, effort
should be made to conclude the cross-examination on the very
same day and for doing so, if the Court has to sit beyond the Court
hours to conclude the trial, the Court shall do so.
7. In this case also, this Court reiterates the aforesaid
observation made in the case of Jishu Tudu (supra).
8. Further, it is also surprising that when the examination
was going on, why the case was adjourned for one and half months
which is a long period. This gives an impression that merely on the
asking of the parties, the Court has adjourned the case and had
granted such a long date.
9. The Trial Court should be cautious in future.
10. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of
the opinion that the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2015) 3 SCC 220, para-57.4, which has been relied upon by this
Court in B.A. No.12960 of 2022, has not been followed.
11. It has been submitted at bar that only one witness
remains to be examined and all the other witnesses have been
examined in this case.
12. Learned counsel representing the petitioner places
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2008)
16 SCC 417, para-60 and 71. These two paragraphs relates to fair
trial and giving liberty to the accused to examine his witnesses. In
this case, it is not a case where by virtue of this order, right to fair
trial is being infringed.
13. The fact is that the last prosecution witness is being
examined and his examination will conclude on 18th or 19th March,
2025, itself. That being so, I am not inclined to release the petitioner
on bail, considering the stage of the trial.
14. Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed.
15. If the petitioner prays to examine his defence witness,
the same should be allowed and sufficient time should be granted
to him for the same.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to all the
Judicial Officers within the State of Jharkhand, including the Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi, for strict compliance, through the Registrar
General of this Court.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant. Cp-2
