Kamal Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Gaurav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2018 in connection with Bano P.S. Case No. 77 of 2018 for alleged offence registered under Sections 147/148/149/353/307 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25(1-A)/26(ii)/27/35 of Arms Act and under Section 17(i)(ii) of C.L.A. Act, now said to be pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2019 in B.A. No. 692/2019. The learned counsel refers to the order of earlier rejection and submits that a report was called for from the learned court below and as per the report, it was stated that ten months time would be required to conclude the trial as the trial had already commenced. The learned counsel submits that despite observation made by this court to conclude the trial within the time mentioned in the report, the trial has not been concluded and the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2018.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits. She also submits that considering the present COVID-19 situation, the trial might not have been concluded, but merely because of the observation made by this Court, no lenient view be taken in the said case. She submits that the allegation made against the petitioner is serious.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits vide order dated 07.08.2019 after considering the seriousness of allegation made against the petitioner. Although as per the report dated 04.06.2019, it was mentioned that the trial was likely to be concluded within ten months, but during the said period, the COVID-19 situation has arisen.

Considering the seriousness of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the earlier order of rejection, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through e-mail/FAX.