Baskinath Mandal vs State of Jharkhand

The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Section(s) 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected on 14.11.2017.

A report was called for from the court below about the status of the trial, from which, it has been informed that charge has been framed on 8.02.2021 and none of the witnesses, out of twelve witnesses, have been examined.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.3.2015 i.e. nearly about 06 years.

Considering the slow progress of trial and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 21.3.2015, I am inclined to release 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Dumka in connection with S.T. No. 111 of 2020, arising out of Sikaripara P.S. Case No. 27/2015 (G.R. No. 379/2015), subject to condition that one of the bailers should be his close relative having sufficient landed property in his/her own name within the State of Jharkhand.

I direct the Jail Authority that before releasing the petitioner from jail, the Jail Authority should get the petitioner tested for COVID-19. If the report is positive, then the District Administration will immediately take steps to isolate the petitioner and get him treated in the COVID Centre by following all the protocols.

This direction is given in the larger public interest and it should not be construed as a condition of bail.