Bhonda Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No.119 of 2019 registered under sections

448/323/341/307/325/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed the murder of father of the

informant. It is further alleged that a case was going on between the petitioner and the deceased in respect of an employment with BCCL and the

deceased was about to succeed in the said case and to deprive the deceased of the benefit of the said employment the petitioner has murdered him. It

is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the daughter of the deceased is an eye-witness to

the occurrence and in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated about the assault made by the petitioner on her

father, mother and her younger brother and besides assaulting her father, the assailants broke the hand of her mother and outraged her modesty by

manhandling her. It is next submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence in the record appearing against the petitioner, there is every chance of

the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murdering the deceased with an evil intention to deprive the petitioner from his

employment with the BCCL, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months

from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.