Lalan Kumar Das @ Lalan Das 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 Bank More P.S. Case No.2161 of 2020 registered under sections 302/34 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 committed the murder of brother of the

informant namely Satish Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in the CCTV footage, it was

found that the vehicle of the petitioner was used in the said occurrence hence, on that basis, the petitioner has been arrested and he has confessed his

guilt. It is then submitted that apart from his confessional statement and the tower location of the mobile phone used by the petitioner shows his

presence near the place of occurrence, there is no other material to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been

in custody for a considerable period of time. 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 as the vehicle of the petitioner was found involved

in the said occurrence and he was present at the place of occurrence as is evident from the Tower Location of his mobile phone, therefore, 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, 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.