Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 164 (JHR)

Akhilesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-24

N.N.TIWARI, P.P.BHATT

body2014
ORDER I.A. No. 8726 of 2013 By the Court.-In this I.A., the appellant has prayed for his release on bail during pendency of the appeal. 2. It has been submitted that the appellant was earlier granted bail by this Court by order dated 14.08.2007, inter-alia. imposing conditions that both the bailors must be the Government servants and that the appellant shall furnish personal bonds surrendering himself before the Court below and that he shall report to the trial Court during pendency of the appeal every 3rd month, preferably on first Monday. The appellant, however, could not comply with the said conditions due to threat perception of his life and had filed an application. The appellant, in that view, had prayed for a direction to appear before any other Court in the State of Jharkhand, but the same was not allowed. Non-compliance of the said conditions was under the said circumstance beyond the control of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel submitted that now the situation has changed. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by any, condition as may be imposed by this Court for his release on bail. Learned counsel submitted that most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and evidence of other PWs are weak and contradictory. The appeal is of the year 2006 and the appellant has been in custody for a long period. The petitioner's earlier prayer for bail was rejected by order dated 5.9.2013 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer if the appeal is not heard within three months. Since the appeal could not be heard till date, the petitioner has filed this application for his release on bail during pendency of the appeal. 4. When the appeal was taken up on 10.01.2014, learned A.P.P had prayed for one week's time to take instruction and file affidavit regarding his involvement in number of cases in which he is wanted and/or has not been granted bail. 5. But learned A.P.P. has not filed any such affidavit. 4. When the appeal was taken up on 10.01.2014, learned A.P.P had prayed for one week's time to take instruction and file affidavit regarding his involvement in number of cases in which he is wanted and/or has not been granted bail. 5. But learned A.P.P. has not filed any such affidavit. The appellant, however, has filed a supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that he was implicated by the Police in 33 cases and out of those cases, bail has been granted in II cases by learned lower Court, in 16 cases bail has been granted by this Court and two criminal cases have been quashed and only in three cases, prayers are to be made for release of bail which were earlier rejected. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the application on the ground that at least in three cases, the appellant has not been granted bail. He further submitted that though he had also sought instruction by letter dated 13.01.2014, but the said letter has not been responded to. 7. Considering the said fads and circumstances and also considering that the appeal is of 2006 and the appellant was earlier granted bail by order dated 14.08.2007, but he could not be released due to non-compliance of certain conditions and also the undertaking that the appellant shall comply with the conditions imposed by this Court, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 445 of 2004 and span comply with the condition imposed by order-dated 14.08.2007 of appearing before learned trial Court after every 3rd month, preferably on first Monday, after his released from custody in this case and in other cases in which he is in custody and that both the bailors must be Government servant of the State of Jharkhand. 8. I.A. No. 8726 of 2013 is accordingly disposed of. I.A. disposed of.