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
9 paragraphs · 287 wordsRajesh Shankar, J
The present bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
In view of the defect pointed out by the office, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete "Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act" as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present bail application.
Permission is accorded.
Office is directed to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the present bail application.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No.305 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/302 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application for regular bail was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 3rd September, 2019 passed in B.A. No.7734 of 2019. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail, primarily for the reason that he is in judicial custody since 3rd February, 2017 and the trial has not yet concluded. At least considering the length of judicial custody, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the petitioner's prayer for regular bail submits that his bail application has earlier been rejected by this Court on merit. The petitioner had been an absconder for a long time and if he is granted bail, there is all likelihood that he may not co-operate in the trial, which is pending since 2009.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to reconsider his bail application. Accordingly, the petitioner's application for bail is, hereby, rejected.