Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28892 (JHR)

BHANU ALIAS BHARAT LAL SINGH @ BHANU SINGH KHARWAR @ BHANU SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/1585/2024 · 2025-08-18

Arun Kumar Rai, Sujit Narayan Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:24135-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB). No. 1585 of 2024 ----- Bhanu @ Bharat Lal Singh @ Bhanu Singh Kharwar @ Bhanu Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Ramdhani Singh, resident of village Palhe, P.O. and P.S. Chiniya, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant :Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. ------ Order No.07/Dated 18thAugust, 2025 1. The appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 directed against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1086 of 2024 by Additional Sessions Judge- II, Garhwa whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular of the appellant has been rejected. 2. The matter was heard by this Court on 25th June, 2025 calling upon the fresh status report of the case. 3. Therefore, fresh status, as available in Flag “Y”, it is evident there from that the prosecution evidence has already been closed. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case is to go under the stage of recording of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that since the prosecution is taking consistent steps to conclude the trial and as such, at this stage the appellant may not be allowed to release on bail. He has further submitted that all necessary steps also be 2025:JHHC:24135-DB Page 2 taken to ensure that the trial is concluded without any unnecessary delay 6. Upon this, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that considering the said undertaking furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he does not intend to press the instant appeal. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and as such disposed of in view of the fact that the prosecution evidence has already been closed. 9. It is expected that the learned trial court shall conclude the trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek