AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 295 wordsAnanda Sen, J
The petitioner is praying for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.683 of 2016 corresponding to S.T. Case No.101 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.
The petitioner is in custody for last seven years. The trial has not yet been concluded. The earlier applications were dismissed but surprisingly the trial has not proceeded. Five more witnesses remains to be examined.
Considering the slackness of the prosecution in proceeding with the trial, I am inclined to release this petitioner on bail, since he cannot be kept in pre-trial custody for an indefinite period.
Accordingly, the present Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.683 of 2016 corresponding to S.T. Case No.101 of 2017 subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors should be a close relative of the petitioner, having sufficient landed property in his own name in the State of Jharkhand;
(ii) The petitioner will appear and mark his attendance before the Judge-in-Charge, Deoghar, once in a month till completion of the trial. If he fails to appear in any particular period, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and steps should be taken to arrest the petitioner.