Ainul Miyan @ Govind Jee vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 9 (i) to (iii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 07.09.2020, have not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and has prayed that the bail application may be heard, as it is a regular bail application of the petitioner, who is in custody.

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the instant bail application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) within 30 days after the physical court starts.

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defect(s).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 42/2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 759/2010 (S.T. No. 118/2019), for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353 I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor he has been put on test identification parade, rather in a case of counter firing between the banned organization and the police, the petitioner has been made accused and petitioner surrendered under the Surrender Policy framed by the Government of Jharkhand in the year 2018, but he has been remanded in this case on 03.01.2019. However, several other co- accused persons namely, Shankar Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 22.06.2018 passed in B.A. No.593/2018, Lav Kumar Chandravanshi @ Chotu Kahar @ Binod Jee @ Binod Kahar and Jagnarayan Yadav @ Vishal Jee have also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.07.2018 passed in B.A. No.5703/2018, Sidhi Parahiya has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.09.2013 passed in B.A. No.7452/2013, Guddu Yadav @ Nirbhay Jee has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.07.2020 passed in B.A. No.4088/2020, Krishna Yadav @ Sikandar Jee has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.06.2017 passed in B.A. No.4698/2017, Nageshwar Yadav has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 19.02.2016 passed in B.A. No.817/2016 and Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar Yadav has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.11.2017 passed in B.A. No.8086/2017, as such, this petitioner, who remained in custody since 2018, but in this case from 03.01.2019, may also be enlarged on bail, as he has not been put on test identification parade.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this petitioner has criminal antecedent and a large number of cases are pending against him, as such, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, State counsel is granted four weeks' time to file detail counter affidavit with regard to the material collected during investigation against the petitioner, criminal antecedent report of the petitioner as well as stage of trial in different cases and injury caused on any police officer in said firing.

Put up this case after four weeks.