High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 03 JH CK 0031

GOKHUL SAW, SON OF LATE DHANU SAW, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE­PALGANJ, PO & PS­PIRTAND, DISTRICT­GIRIDIH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 16 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
B.A. No.9394 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 337 words

This is second attempt by the petitioner for bail in Pirtand P.S. Case No.5/2002, corresponding to G.R. No.214/2002 [S.T.No. 24/2011] which was

registered for offences under sections 124(A)/122/120(B) IPC, u/s 13 of UAP Act, u/s 17(ii)/18 of CLA Act, u/s 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, u/s

25(1Â​b)a/ 26/ 35 of Arms Act, and u/s 3(5)/ 5(1)/ 20(2)/ 21(10)/ 21(2)/ 21(3)/ 22(2A) of Pota Act, 2001.    Â

Contending that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and he is in judicial custody since 05.12.2016 Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel

for the petitioner refers to the allegations in the First Information Report to contend that there is no substantial evidence for implication of the petitioner

in this case. In the peculiar facts of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges the Court to take a humanitarian approach while

considering the prayer for grant of bail.

The First Information Report lodged on 02.02.2002 runs into five handÂwritten pages. There are serious allegations levelled against the members of

the extremist organization with which the petitioner has been associated. There are details of extortion money collected from numerous persons,

seizure of arms which runs into five attached pages and other details. Now the case has been committed to the court of sessions. The contention

raised on acquittal of the petitioner in other cases and merits of the case have already been dealt with by this Court in order dated 25.07.2017.Â

Except that in the instant criminal case now charges have been framed, there is no other change in the circumstances, considering which the Court

may consider prayer for grant of bail and accordingly, this application is dismissed. On health condition of the petitioner, the Jail Superintendent,

Giridih is directed to take necessary steps for treatment of the petitioner in the Government hospital, if necessary. In case the petitioner is advised to

seek specialized treatment, he may renew his prayer for bail on medical ground before the learned court below.Â

The bail application stands dismissed.  Â