SANTAN KUMAR BHUIYAN ALIAS SANTAN BHUIYAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./10014/2024 · 2025-01-24
Rajesh Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27258 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27258 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10014 of 2024 ---- Santan Kumar Bhuiyan @ Santan Bhuiyan, aged about 24 years, son of Jugal Bhuiyan, resident of Village Jhardag, P.O. Shahpur, P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh
…. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Opposite Party ----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ----
For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
: Mr. Rohit Kr. Gupta, Adv.
For the State
: Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P.
----
06/Dated: 24th January, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The applicant who is in custody since 10.04.2024, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T No.358 of 2024, arising out of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.52 of 2024, corresponding to G.R No.1385 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Hazaribagh.
3. The prayer for bail of the applicant was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in B.A No.5566 of 2024.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that except confession of the co-accused, there is no other material against this applicant. Charge has already been framed on 07.09.2024. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been renewed.
5.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again.
7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months.
8. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, then the applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/- Uploaded