Sakaldeo Yadav 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 S.T. Case No.170 of 2020 arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.173 of 2020

registered under sections 143/149/498A/302/328 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of his wife by

administering poison to her and also assaulted her causing head injury. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and

are general and omnibus in nature. 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 Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the postmortem report of the victim corroborates the

prosecution case that the cause of death has been found to be because of the head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. It is next submitted that

there is allegation of demand of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- by the petitioner as dowry demand and as the same was not given hence the deceased was

subjected to torture and cruelty. It is therefore submitted that in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, 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.