Md. Jahid Mian Son of Md. Zulfikar Mian vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Bhanu

Pratap Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

the informant.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sikandra P.S. Case No.

106 of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 instituted under Sections

307 / 324 / 452 / 460 / 109 / 147 / 148 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 27

of the Arms Act .

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail

as earlier such prayer was rejected on 02.07.2014 in Cr. Misc. No.

10010 of 2014.

There have been many turns and twists in the case.

Initially, in the present application, provisional bail was sought by

the petitioner on the ground that he has been referred for further

treatment and was suffering from depressive psychosis and thus, the

Court granted indulgence and allowed him privilege of provisional

bail by order dated 14.04.2015 with a direction that he should

surrender before 16.05.2015. Thereafter, another Interlocutory

Application was filed for extension of the provisional bail and by

order dated 13.05.2015, the provisional bail was further extended

and he was directed to surrender latest by 4th July, 2015. Again, an

Interlocutory Application was filed for further extending the

provisional bail. When objection was raised on behalf of learned

counsel for the informant that the petitioner has been moving in the

village as if he was normal, the Court had directed the Director,

RINPAS, Ranchi to submit a report. The report indicated that he

was suffering from mental illness and was advised to continue the

medicine and regular checkup every two months and that he showed

gradual improvement in his condition. The Court had also observed

in its order dated 28.09.2016 that the petitioner had undertaken not

to object to the framing of charges but on 18.01.2017, it was noted

that till then charges had not been framed and thus, the Court had

directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court below latest by

30th January, 2017. The petitioner surrendered on 27.01.2017 and

charges were framed against him. Earlier, the trial was bifurcated as

far as the petitioner is concerned as charges had been framed against

other co-accused. However, the Court has been informed that both

the trials of the rest of the accused and the petitioner is going

simultaneously before the same Court and common dates are fixed,

which is also the requirement of law. On the last occasion, the

informant had submitted that despite all the accused being family

members, being 7 in number, including the petitioner, on every date

on some technical pretext like non appearance of one of the parties,

the trial has still not proceeded after framing of charge. On such

submission, the Court had asked learned counsel for the petitioner as

to whether the other family members i.e., brothers and father of the

petitioner were ready to give undertaking that they shall cooperate

in the trial and not seek adjournment and upon instructions from one

of the brothers who was present in Court, learned counsel had

submitted that a supplementary affidavit to this effect shall be filed.

Today, affidavit has been filed without giving any undertaking and

the deponent is the cousin brother-in-law of the petitioner.

The case is of the year 2013 and there is direct

allegation of firing by the petitioner on the chest of the injured

which is corroborated by the injury report and he was treated at

PMCH and the petitioner has been identified as the person who had

fired.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

time of occurrence and the time of injury report do not tally, which

give rise to the suspicion that the same was manufactured. He

further submitted that the injured in the case has not been examined

during investigation which also creates doubt with regard to the

veracity of the allegation. Learned counsel further submitted that

there is also counter case for the same incident in which there is

allegation of filing and injury and in which all the accused persons

from the informant side have been granted bail.

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the

informant submitted that charges having been framed in January and

till date the trial not proceeding i.e., almost four months having

elapsed, is clear indication of the dilatory tactics by the accused in

the present case. It was further submitted that the petitioner, for a

minor ailment which did not require him to be outside jail, has

derived benefit for a long time and now the trial not being allowed

to proceed, the plan is to somehow defeat the cause of justice and

not allow the trial to be concluded.

Having considered the rival contentions, this Court

finds that after the rejection of the earlier prayer for bail on

02.07.2014, no mitigating circumstances except for passage of time

has been brought to the notice of the Court which may require

reconsideration. Moreover, for the substantive portion of the period

i.e., after order dated 15.04.2015 till 27.01.2017, the petitioner was

on provisional bail and still charges not being framed is a glaring

instance to indicate that the privilege of letting him out of jail shall

result in delay in the trial which has been proved from the conduct

of the petitioner in the present case as detailed above.

For the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons

recorded in the earlier orders, as also in the order dated 13.05.2013

in Cr. Misc. No. 10010 of 2014, the Court is not inclined to grant

bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

However, the Court below is directed to expedite

the trial.