Yukti Narayan Singh @ Dara Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 2178 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Yukti Narayan Singh @ Dara Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 31 January, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        B.A. No. 10242 of 2024

   Yukti Narayan Singh @ Dara Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Vijay
   Kumar Singh, resident of village Majhiaon, P.O. & P.S. Majhiaon,
   District Garhwa (Jharkhand)                ...    ...      Petitioner
                               Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                     ...    ... Opp. Party

                        ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey 2, Adv.

                              Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent     :
                        ---
     st
07/31 January 2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2018 in connection with S.T. No. 267 of 2018 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 147 of 2018 registered for offence under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge 1st, Garhwa.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected thrice by this Court.

4. A report has been received from the concerned court which is dated 20.12.2024 indicating that part argument was advanced by the learned defence counsel and the case was fixed for rest argument on 23.12.2024. It has also been mentioned in the report that expected time for disposal of the case may be 1-2 months.

5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the matter is at the stage of final argument and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some observation may be made, so that the final judgment is ultimately passed by the learned court.

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and the fact that the argument in the trial has already commenced, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

8. However, it is observed that the learned court shall make all endeavor to dispose of the case as early as possible without giving unnecessary adjournment. The parties to cooperate.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul