Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 108 (JHR)

Bijay Kumar Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-02-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 21-4-2004 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 2004 whereby he has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner, and further prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner has been declared juvenile and, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the basis of FIR lodged against the petitioner, after due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 341, IPC and accordingly cognizance of the offences has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It further appears from the record that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected upto this Honble Court in B.A. No. 1349 of 2003 when the case was at an early stage of investigation. Thereafter, on the application, the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Court vide order dated 11-3-2004. The prayer for bail of the petitioner, thereafter, was rejected by the Juvenile Court and in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the prayer for bail was rejected holding that there is direct allegation of committing murder against the appellant who had gone in association of anti-social elements. 5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge. In my opinion also the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this revision application is dismissed.