Brij Mohan Singh @ Mantu vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

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

present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bhandariya P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 registered under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery and caused hurt to the

victim in the process of committing robbery. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has

been identified in the T.I.P. by the informant and the witnesses but no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the

petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent which is evident from para-8 of the instant bail application. It is lastly

submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.07.2020 which is evident from para-16 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted

that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has been identified in the T.I.P and

there is overwhelming material in the record to ensure conviction of the petitioner. Hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if

released on bail. Hence, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be

released on 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.