Dr. Arbind Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is accused in connection with S.T. No. 223 of 2012 arising out of Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 04 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 235 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa.

It appears from the fardbeyan that dead body of husband of the informant was recovered from a room of the quarter allotted to the petitioner and the room from where the dead body was recovered was put under lock. Motorcycle belonging to the deceased was also recovered from the garage of the said quarter.

It is submitted that the informant has also been made accused in this case and supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted against her. She has been granted anticipatory bail. Since the status of informant has changed to that of accused, the fardbeyan given by her can well be considered as a false statement. Furthermore, the maid servant Basanti Devi has been examined in course of trial and she has not supported the prosecution case. Some of the formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer are left to be examined. Since last six months no witness has turned up. In the circumstances the petitioner may be given opportunity to face trial by remaining outside the jail.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

It appears that considering merit of the case prayer for bail made on behalf of this petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2013 passed in B.A. No. 2306 of 2013. The status report submitted by the Sessions Judge indicates that trial of this petitioner has been withheld with a purpose to tag the case record of Sessions Trial No. 244 of 2013 in which the informant has been made an accused. I do not think that it was necessary to withheld the trial of the present accused. It is made clear, if possible, both the cases can be disposed of with the common judgment, but for the sake of trial of Sessions Trial No. 244 of 2013, the trial of present case i.e. Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2012 cannot be withheld or delayed. The learned Sessions Judge has also suggested to conclude the trial within six months. The evidences, which are available on record, are required to be considered at the time of conclusion of the trial and that too by the trial Court.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that dead body of deceased was recovered from a locked room of the quarter allotted to this petitioner and the motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered from that place.

Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, I do not feel inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail at present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made on behalf of above named petitioner stands rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by taking all efforts and coercive steps to secure attendance of witnesses to conclude the trial preferably by the end of April, 2014. The liberty is given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail, if the trial is not so concluded by the end of April, 2014.