Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6008 (JHR)

SANTOSH KUMAR RAI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1464/2025 · 2025-07-04

Ambuj Nath

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:17943 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1464 of 2025 ------- Santosh Kumar Rai, aged about 51 years, son of Jugal Kishore Rai, resident of Rai Market, Shop No.18, Adityapur, Kandra, Main Road, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Lal, son of Sanat Lal, resident of GF 2/102, Golmuri Flat, Golmuri, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. .…. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P. P. -------- 05/ Dated 04.07.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021, for the offence registered under Sections 406, 422, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella. Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide B.A. No.10943/2024 by order dated 06.01.2025. Petitioner is the Power of Attorney Holder of a land and he sold the portion of the land to the informant for a consideration amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Petitioner did not deliver the possession of the land to the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody for about eleven months. It was further submitted that charge has been framed in this case on 23.01.2025 but the trial has not yet been concluded. It was also submitted that the prosecution has only examined one witness. -2- Report regarding the stage of the trial, earlier called for, has been received. It appears that out of eleven witnesses, one witness has been examined. Learned C.J.M., Seraikella has stated in his report that the trial is likely to be concluded within eight months. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is once again rejected. Petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after eight months, if the trial is not concluded. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-