AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court twice firstly, vide order dated 29.08.2019 passed in B.A. No. 4774 of 2019 and secondly, vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed in B.A. No. 12015 of 2019. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail primarily for the reason that even after rejection of the petitioner's bail application by this Court on 06.03.2020, no further witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Aman Manjhi, who was said to be one of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, has appeared in the trial as PW-1, however, he has not stated anything material against the petitioner. So far as two other eye-witnesses namely, Dilip Mahto and Manoj Kerketta are concerned, they have not supported the case of the prosecution in the trial and have accordingly been declared hostile. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.01.2019 and hence, he may be given the privilege of regular bail. The petitioner undertakes that he will appear in the trial on each and every date as fixed by the learned trial court.
A report as contained in letter no. 187 dated 01.04.2021 has been submitted by the concerned trial court i.e., District & Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Simdega on perusal of which it appears that out of 11 chargesheet witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined. The doctor and the I.O. are still to be examined in the trial.
Same was the position while this Court had rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 06.03.2020 passed in B.A. No. 12015 of 2019.
The learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that no prosecution witness has been examined in the trial for more than a year, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named 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-I, Simdega in connection with S.T. No. 105 of 2019, subject to the condition that (i) one of the bailors shall be the local resident of Simdega district and
(ii) the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date unless his physical appearance for a particular date is exempted by specific order of the trial court, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.