Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 325 (JHR)

Kishore @ Kishore Modi v. State of Jharkhand

2008-03-14

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in this case in which trial is going on for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 326/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. His prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court on 17.8.2007 considering the fact that the Trial has already commenced and two witnesses have already been examined. However, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months and the liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not conducted within the said period. 3. Now, by filing this bail application the prayer for bail has been renewed on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that in spite of the time fixed by this Court, the trial has not yet been concluded and up till now only two witnesses have been examined. 4. From the impugned order dated 7.3.2008, rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner, it appears that the trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as processes against the witnesses including the informant but no one appeared to depose. Even the execution report has also not been submitted to the Court though the letter to that effect was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh by the trial Court. Therefore, it appears that the prosecution agency is not taking proper interest for production of the prosecution witness and the trial Court is also watching as silent spectator. 5. In this view of the matter, the trial Court as well as the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, are directed to submit explanation as to, why an appropriate order be not passed against them for not taking appropriate steps for disposal of the trial as per the direction of this Court. The report must be submitted to this Court by 28th of March 2008. 6. Let the application be listed again under that same heading on 4th of April 2008. 7. If the report is not received to this Court by 28th March 2008, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, shall appear in person before this Court on the next date fixed in this case, i.e. on 4th April 2008 for further orders. 8. 6. Let the application be listed again under that same heading on 4th of April 2008. 7. If the report is not received to this Court by 28th March 2008, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, shall appear in person before this Court on the next date fixed in this case, i.e. on 4th April 2008 for further orders. 8. Let the order be communicated to the concerned officers through FAX by the office. Petition disposed of.