AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chand, J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
This third bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant with prayer to release on bail in connection with Birni P.S. Case No.44 of 2022 (S.T. Case No.295 of 2022) registered under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that earlier twice the prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide orders dated 3rd June, 2022 and 4th November, 2022 passed in B.A. Nos. 5335 of 2022 and 9729 of 2022 respectively. By way of present bail application, the applicant has renewed his prayer for bail, primarily for the reasons that while pursuing the first bail application of the applicant, the former counsel has not brought this fact to the notice of the Court that TIP was conducted belated. Even this ground was not taken at the time of pressing the second bail application. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 5th March, 2022 and the charge has been framed by the learned trial court but till date no witness has been examined. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Monu Verma and Vikas Kumar Saw @ Vikas Saw have already been granted bail by the different co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 7th July, 2022 and 21st December, 2022 passed in B.A. Nos.5012 of 2022 and 10750 of 2022 respectively.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Earlier the first and second bail application of the applicant were rejected on merit. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that the former counsel while pressing the first and second bail application could not take the plea that the TIP was conducted belated, is not the ground for consideration of the third bail application. More so, while disposing of the first bail application of the applicant, this Bench has taken into consideration the fact that the TIP was conducted during investigation and the applicant was identified by the informant/victim and the looted cash amount of Rs.8575/- was also recovered from his possession. So far as the propriety of the TIP is concerned, the same is the question of trial which has to be decided after taking into consideration the testimony of those, who have conducted the TIP. So far as the ground that co-accused Monu Verma and Vikas Saw has been granted bail is concerned, the same cannot be taken into consideration as a ground of parity.
From the bail order of Vikash Saw and Monu Verma, it is evident that they were not identified during TIP while the present applicant was identified in TIP and the looted amount was also recovered from his possession.
In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted as a new ground for consideration of this third bail application. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, rejected.