Patras Nag vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 (G.R. No.77 of 2015) (S.T. No.25 of 2016

(A)) registered under sections 364/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons have

kidnapped and murdered the daughter of the informant on the allegation that she is an informer of police. It is further submitted that the allegations

against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.07.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no.

15 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the co-accused person has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Benches of this Court vide

orders dated 18.12.2017, 30.04.2019 and 17.02.2017 in B.A. Nos.7592 of 2017, 3554 of 2019 and 10021 of 2016. It is lastly submitted that the

petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the

other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that co-accused persons were granted bail after they have spent in custody for several

years and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he being the active member of banned Maoist extremist organization had killed the

daughter of the informant on the allegation of being a police informer, therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail.

Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murdering the daughter of the informant after kidnapping her on the allegation that

she is a police informer, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months

from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.