Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1030 (JHR)

Nemi Chand Jain v. State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

2004-10-14

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. K. Jain learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the CBI. 2. The petitioner, who is an accused in connection with RC Case No. 2 (E)/98 (D), for an offence Under Sections 120B. 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application renewing his prayer for bail, which was earlier rejected on its merit by this Court on 23.7.2004 in BA No. 2374 of 2004. 3. After refusal of the prayer for bail, the petitioner moved before the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 3578 of 2004 but as it appears from Annexure P-6 that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 23.8.2004 after hearing the parties. 4. Now the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the ground that some of the facts could not be pointed out before this Court at the time of hearing of his earlier bail application and the basis of the said order of this Court rejecting the prayer for bail was not correct because there was no wrongful loss to the Bank as was observed by this Court in its earlier order. It is further submitted that now the petitioner has remained in jail for six months and, therefore, in view of the decisions in the cases of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; Dr. Jagannath Mishra v. C. B. I., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 611 and in the case of Chandraswami and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 751 wherein the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused persons since they had completed six months in custody. 5. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned Sr. counsel of course was very fair enough in submitting that I here is no hard and fast rule that if an accused has completed six months in custody then he has to be released on bail but at the same time submitted that since the charge-sheet has already been submitted in this ease, there is no need for the prosecution to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. 6. 6. In may view, the prayer for bail of the petitioner on its merit cannot and should not be reconsidered again by this Court when the Supreme Court has already refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid order of rejection of bail of the petitioner even on the ground that some factual aspect were not pointed out on earlier occasion, which were available to the petitioner. 7. Hence, I refuse to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the merit of the case since I have already rejected his prayer earlier and the Apex Court has also dismissed the SLP against the said order of this Court after hearing the parties. 8. However, so far the detention of the petitioner for indefinite period is concerned. I hereby direct the Special Judge, CBI, before whom the case is pending, to lake all possible steps to dispose of the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of one year. If any of the accused is not appearing or is absconding, his trial can be separated from the other accused who have already appeared in Court. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected again.