Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 513 (JHR)

Nemi Puri v. State of Jharkhand

2020-05-20

S.CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2020
ORDER : S. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Hearing of this bail application has been convened and conducted through Video-Conferencing. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P. 3. The previous bail applications filed by the petitioner were rejected by different Benches of this Court; Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar was on transfer before the second bail application on behalf of the petitioner was filed in this Court. 4. In the above facts, on 14.06.2019 the following order was passed by this Court: "At the first instance the attempt by the petitioner seeking bail vide B.A. No. 6213 of 2014 has failed when the said bail application was dismissed by an order dated 13.11.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.11.2014 was passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar, now the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice. The last rejection order has been passed by this Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in such a situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order in Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2019 tided "M/s. Gati Limited v. T. Nagarajan Piramiajee and Anr." Copy of the order in "M/s. Gati Limited" is taken on record. In the above facts, the Registry is directed to seek direction from the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice." 5. Now this matter has been assigned to this Bench. 6. On previous three occasions, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner was declined on merits and facts of this case in some detail have been recorded in the previous orders passed by this Court. 7. Now the prayer for bail has been renewed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that co-accused, namely, Kailash Puri after two failed attempts in this Court seeking bail; B.A. No. 5045 of 2017 and B.A. No. 1183 of 2018, had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4941 of 2018 and vide order dated 08.01.2019 he has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while so earlier rejection orders rejecting the previous bail applications of the petitioner shall not be legal impediment in considering the present application for bail moved on behalf of the petitioner. 8. 8. It is important to mention that by an order dated 08.01.2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the co-accused, namely, Kailash Puri and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the State of Jharkhand challenging the orders granting bail to other co-accused persons. It is also relevant to record here that by the order dated 08.01.2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months. 9. It is an admitted position that till date the trial has not been concluded, at least two of the witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no reasonable possibility when the trial in S.T. No. 103 of 2015 would conclude. The records would reveal that in the last one year the trial in S.T. No. 103 of 2015 has not progressed substantially and the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been complied by the court concerned. The learned A.P.P. is unable to give any satisfactory answer for the delay in conclusion of the trial. 10. The petitioner has remained in jail for about six years and delay in conclusion of the trial is solely attributable to the prosecution. 11. By now there is no doubt that speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and during the trial presumption of innocence should be given a higher pedestal. It is true that previously bail applications filed by the petitioner were rejected by this Court but in view of the subsequent developments and particularly considering the plea of parity, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Nemi Puri alias Nema Puri shall be released on bail on executing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with S.T. No. 103 of 2015, but without sureties, and this condition can be modified subsequently by the trial court asking the petitioner to furnish two sureties of the like amount, as deem fit, and amongst other conditions which may be imposed by the court concerned, the petitioner shall observe the following conditions: (i) he shall disclose his present address and his mobile number which shall not be changed by him without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer. (ii) he shall not change his place of residence as disclosed by him now, without proper intimation to the court concerned. (ii) he shall not change his place of residence as disclosed by him now, without proper intimation to the court concerned. (iii) he shall follow all the directives issued by the Central Government as well the State of Jharkhand for containing spread of COVID-19, and (iv) he shall appear before the trial court, as and when required, but for just excuse for which he shall file an appropriate application seeking exemption from his appearance on a particular date but in any event for his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. he must remain physically present in the court. 13. B.A. No. 8478 of 2018 is allowed. 14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned and the concerned Jail Superintendent through 'Fax'.