Rasid Seikh @ Rashid Shekh @ Roshid Sk v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly the instant appeal stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 s. 21(4)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Next date fixed for Prosecution evidence is 13.07.2023. This is for your kind information and needful.” Learned A.P.P. has submitted that since the appellant has absconded fairly for a long period as such the trial has delayed, as would appear from impugned order dated…
Judgment
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Snehlika Bhagat, APP Order No. 06 : Dated 13th July, 2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J: -------- The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 against order dated 21.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in S.T. No. 202 of 2012 connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 178 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 349 of 2011 registered under Sections 489(A), 489(B), 489(C) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It appears from the impugned order that on earlier occasion the appellant was directed to be released on bail on consideration of the case on merit but since he has misused the privilege of bail, therefore, bail bond was cancelled on
21.06.2017. However, subsequent thereto he was remanded in this case from another case being S.C. 112/2015 at City Civil Court and Sessions Court at Bombay. The appellant thereafter has filed application for regular bail before the trial Court which - 2 - was rejected vide order dated 21.01.2023 against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The matter was heard by this Bench on merit on
23.06.2023 and Case Diary along with the antecedent report as also the status of the trial from the trial Court was called for. The Case Diary has been received, as has been informed by learned counsel for the respondent-State. Status of the trial has also been appended as Flag X. It appears from the Status report dated 30th June, 2023 that altogether six prosecution witnesses have been examined out of eleven chare-sheet witnesses. It further appears that the steps have been taken for production of further witnesses with a direction to produce witness by giving last chance to the prosecution and the matter has been posted for prosecution evidence on 13.07.2023 i.e., today. For ready reference, the relevant portion aforesaid report is reproduced hereunder as: “In compliance of Hon’ble Court’s Memo No. 9412 dated 28.06.23 I am submitting the present status report of the Case regarding S.T. Case No. 202/12 corresponding to G.R. No. 349/2011 Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 178/2011 in connection with Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 332 of 2023. (1).This case is fixed for Prosecution Evidence. (2).There are total 11 Chargesheet witnesses in this case out of which total 6 Prosecution witnesses have been examined. (3).Summons, Bailable warrant, Non-Bailable Warrant to witnesses through police Station has already been issued.
Letter to S.P. Sahibganj for holding the payment of concerned police witnesses & Letter to Secretary DLSA Sahibganj have also been issued. - 3 -
Operative part
Next date fixed for Prosecution evidence is 13.07.2023. This is for your kind information and needful.” Learned A.P.P. has submitted that since the appellant has absconded fairly for a long period as such the trial has delayed, as would appear from impugned order dated 21.01.2023 that as on 21.01.2023 out of 11 witnesses only one witness could be examined. But till 30th June, 2023 total six witnesses have been examined. Furthermore, the trial Court has given last chance to produce the prosecution witness and in that view of the matter it would be just and proper to direct to conclude the trial within stipulated period of time. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that six witnesses have already been examined and as per status report of the learned trial Court last chance has been provided to the prosecution to produce witnesses, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of four months. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ (Subhash Chand, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the instant appeal stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 — s. 21(4); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.