The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Jainendra Kumar @ Jainendra Singh @ Pintu Singh B.A. No. 12048 of 2023 Versus ... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
possible. The petitioner had thereafter moved this Court in B.A. No. 9068 of 2021 which was dismissed on 12.04.2022 and subsequent thereto had again moved in B.A. No. 2464 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2023 with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2016. It has been submitted that there is no direct evidence to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the murders and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the petitioner has been incarcerated for a period of more than seven years. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in B.A. No. 2464 of 2023 while submitting that pursuant to the said order an application was preferred by the petitioner for splitting-up of the trial which was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2023 by the learned trial court against which the informant had 2. preferred a revision application before this Court and the order dated 19.10.2023 has been ordered to be stayed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner does not intend to produce any defence evidence, but on account of the order of stay passed by this Court in Criminal Revision 1502 of 2023, the petitioner is suffering due to the non-appearance of the defence witnesses. It has also been submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also passed an order for expeditious disposal of the trial, but only on account of the defence witnesses not being produced by the other accused persons, the trial has been stalled which has led to the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that the dare devil act on the part of the petitioner and other accused persons led to the murder of four persons in broad day light. Mr. Ajit Kumar has taken this Court through the various orders passed by this Court as well as the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner while submitting that the entire trial has not been stayed as it is clear from the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 1502 of 2023 that order dated 19.10.2023 which was passed for splitting-up of the trial has only been stayed. Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order from which it appears that four defence witnesses have already been examined and the trial is in progress. 6. As noted above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner had been rejected on three occasions by this Court and one occasion by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that in B.A. No. 2464 of 2023 an order was passed on 05.09.2023, directing the learned trial court to consider any application preferred by the petitioner for splitting-up of the trial and it seems that pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner had preferred an application which was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2023 by the learned trial court and the case of the petitioner was split-up and the case record was fixed for argument on 23.11.2023. The said order dated 19.10.2023 was challenged by the informant before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1502 of 2023 and vide order dated 11.12.2023, the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned trial court has been directed to be stayed. It is abundantly clear that 3. the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1502 of 2023 has not stayed the trial, but has merely stayed the order by virtue of which the case of the present petitioner was split-up. As would be evident from the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 four defence witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is progressing though not at the speed which is desirable. 7. So far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 35 and other witnesses clearly indicates the role played by the petitioner in conspiring with the other accused persons in committing the murder of Niraj Singh in broad day light. Such evidence has already been considered and discussed in the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in B.A. No. 2464 of 2023. The allegations reveal that in broad day light four persons were shot dead on a busy street on account of the indiscriminate firing resorted to by several of the accused persons. The name of the petitioner figures as a conspirator and as per the evidence of the witnesses noted above, he had actively conspired in eliminating Niraj Singh. Though the petitioner is in custody since long, but in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the murders along with the other accused persons, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner which stands rejected once again with a direction to the learned trial court to endeavour to conclude the trail at the earliest. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
Arguments
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant Order No. 08 --- : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate : APP : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate --- Dated 21st February, 2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petitioner is in an accused in connection with S.T. No. 276(A) of 2017 arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 48 of 2017, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad. 3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 7505 of 2017 vide order dated 05.11.2018 against which the petitioner had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 303 of 2019 which also was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2019 with a direction to the learned trial to conclude the trial as expeditiously as