Binod Singh @ Mowgli @ Mogli 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 S.T. No.122 of 2017 arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.198 of 2016

registered under sections 302/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has murdered Upendra Singh. It is further

submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and during the trial, P.W.5 has categorically stated that the petitioner shot dead

Upendra Singh and he caught hold of the petitioner and yet another accomplish of the petitioner fired at P.W.5 which hit the petitioner and thus the

petitioner sustained bullet injury also. It is next submitted that in paragraph no.134 of his deposition, P.W.5 has stated that he came to know about the

name of the petitioner after going through the newspaper report. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.12.2016. 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 since there is serious allegation against the

petitioner of committing murder of Upendra Singh and there is overwhelming evidence in the record therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner

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

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murdering the deceased- Upendra Singh within the premises of Civil Court,

Jamshedpur, 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 regular 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.