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
8 paragraphs · 218 wordsRajesh Shankar, J
The present bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/307/452/506/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with S.T. No. 221 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2017 passed in B.A. No. 9686 of 2016. By way of present bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily for the reason that he is in judicial custody since 28.01.2016 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.
No one appears on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the learned trial court, it appears that out of 7 chargesheet witnesses, 6 witnesses have already been examined.
Keeping in view that the trial is at concluding stage, I am not inclined to reconsider the petitioner's application for grant of regular bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.