Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand

Kailash Prasad Deo, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect nos.9(i) to 9(viii) in the bail application, as pointed out by the stamp

reporter dated 19.04.2021, but undertakes to remove the defect(s) within 30 days, after the physical court starts and prayed that bail application may

be heard as it is a regular bail.

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the 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.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sabyasanchi and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 137 of 2019, for the offence

registered under Sections 341, 342, 325 and 307/34 IPC and subsequently Section 302 IPC has been added vide order dated 04.12.2019 and also under

Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier prayer for bail of petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2020 in

B.A. No.1688 of 2020 and subsequently on 15.01.2021 in B.A. No.10348 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that informant himself is not an eye witness to the occurrence rather as per the material

collected during investigation at para 40 statement of Arun Yadav, at para 41 statement of Mukesh Kumar Singh, at para 47 statement of Akhilesh

Kumar, at para 48 statement of Santosh Kumar, at para 78 statement of Nishikant Pandey and at para 79 statement of Manoj Yadav of the case

diary, no case is made out against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that charge has already been framed and out of ten prosecution witnesses, two have been

examined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that accused- Rajesh Yadav, who has assaulted and caused injury upon the victim, who

succumbed to the injury, has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 passed in B.A. No.1639 of

2020, as such, petitioner who is in custody since 30.11.2019 may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this Court while rejecting the prayer for bail of this petitioner has

considered all these things and has passed the speaking orders on 19.05.2020 and 15.01.2021 whereby it has been observed that injured has disclosed

the occurrence to his brother taking name of accused, Amit Kumar Gupta (petitioner), Rajesh Yadav, Jaggu Paswan, Rinku Khan and owner of the

Shahi Darwar Hotel and four unknown persons, but specific allegation of assault made by iron rod has been attributed against the petitioner (Amit

Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta).

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to the co-accused, Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh

Prasad Yadav only on the ground that specific allegation of assault has been attributed to accused, Amit Kumar Gupta (petitioner), as such, petitioner

does not deserve to be enlarged on bail on reconsideration.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, it appears that charge has already been framed on 28.01.2021,

under Section 302/34 IPC and out of ten chargesheeted witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined, as such, this Court is not inclined to

grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is hereby rejected. Since the Court is functioning by virtual mode, it would

not be proper to frame any time schedule.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial, considering that petitioner is in custody.