Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 682 (JHR)

Paras Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-03-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This is second attempt by the petitioner for bail in S.T. No. 190 of 2017 arising out of Basis P.S. Case No. 64 of 2015. 2. A First Information Report was lodged for the offences under section 302/120B r/w section 34 IPC, section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under section 17 of the CLA Act. 3. Previously, the petitioner came to this Court in B.A. No. 3457 of 2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.08.2017. 4. The order passed in B.A. No. 3457 of 2017 records that the petitioner is said to be a member of the banned organization-PLFI. 5. The State has produced history-ticket of the accused-petitioner which shows that eleven cases of serious nature have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he has been made accused in nine cases out of which in two cases he has been acquitted and in four cases he is on bail. 6. It is stated that in Basia P.S. Case No. 19 of 2016, the petitioner has been convicted and the appeal preferred by him is pending in this Court. 7. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other co-accused persons have been granted bail and, in fact, after B.A. No. 3457 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn, by an order dated 29.11.2017 co-accused Kaleshwar Mahto was granted bail in B.A. No. 8383 of 2017. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact, Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who has remained in judicial custody since 31.05.2016 is entitled for bail on parity. 9. In the first place, it needs to be indicated that the length of custody alone is not a ground for enlarging a person on bail who is an accused in serious crime like murder. On plea of parity all that is required to be stated is that it is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that the other co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail have also been implicated in number of criminal case [refer, " Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 ]. The fact that the petitioner has been made an accused in number of cases is a relevant factor for declining bail to him. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 ]. The fact that the petitioner has been made an accused in number of cases is a relevant factor for declining bail to him. 10 On the basis of the number of cases registered against him it can be reasonably inferred that once enlarged on bail there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing the crime once again [refer, " Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others" reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 ]. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application and accordingly, B.A. No. 6605 of 2018 is dismissed.