Prahlad Kumar Sahu @ Prahlad Kumar 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 Gumla P.S. Case No. 140 of 2020 registered under section 385/387 of the Indian Penal

Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an active member of the banned PLFI group

of Parmeshwar Gope and in the name of the Parmeshwar Gope, the petitioner demanded levy from the informant by calling on her mobile phone and

also went to the house of the informant and fired at her gate and threatened her to kill and at the instance of Parmeshwar Gope, the petitioner did all

these things. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a student of Class 12th and he has

been in judicial custody since 21.09.2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and he is also involved

in another case and under the instructions of area commander of PLFI namely Parmeshwar Gope, the petitioner is involved in collection of levy and

resorts to firing to create an environment of terror, hence, he is a threat to law and order in the locality. It is therefore submitted that, the petitioner

ought not to be admitted on bail.

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner of collecting of levy in the name of banned Organization PLFI as well as acts of

terror committed by him, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the 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 the witnesses by examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID-19 pandemic.