Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Behra @ Bikash Behra @ Bikas Behra vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 4 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:17891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3554 of 2025
Vikash Behra @ Bikash Behra @ Bikas Behra, aged about 42 years, S/o
Rajendra Prasad Behra, resident of Village- Sidma, P.O.- Kheriatangar,
P.S.- Manjhari, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P.
Order No.04/Dated- 04.07.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with
Manjhari P.S. Case No. 35 of 2022 (S.T. Case No.195 of 2023),
registered for the offences punishable under Section 365/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, thereafter, charge has been framed on
03.07.2023 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 367, 368 and 371 of
the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
3. As per FIR, allegation is that on 26.05.2022 at about 10:40
A.M., the informant received the information on his mobile phone
that in village Sidma, three persons of his family were kidnapped.
Thereafter, he along with police force reached at place of
occurrence and found that present petitioner (Vikash Behra) who
has a land dispute with the informant, has kidnaped the family
members of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather
he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of
suspicion. It is further submitted that this is the third regular bail
application of the petitioner and earlier his bail applications being
B.A. No.1745 of 2024 vide order dated 01.07.2024 was rejected on
merits by this Court and B.A. No.10881 of 2024 vide order dated
03.01.2025 was also rejected on merits by this Court with
Page | 1
2025:JHHC:17891
observation that the learned trial court directed to expedite the
trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period
of two months otherwise the petitioner was at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail. It is further submitted that the trial has not
concluded within the time framed by this Court and there is a
land dispute and petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since
07.06.2023
. Charge has been framed on 03.07.2023. Petitioner
undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining
physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in
any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or
influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner
may be extended the privilege of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for
entertaining the third bail application while earlier his two bail
applications were rejected and is fit to be dismissed. Hence,
petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of allegation coupled with the materials available against the
petitioner and also in view of the fact that earlier prayer for bail of
the petitioner was rejected twice on merits and from the report
submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the case is
only pending for receipt of the F.S.L. Report. In this view of the
matter, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined
to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands
rejected.
7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the
trial within six months from the date of receiving of this order,
thereafter, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail
application, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid
period.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
Page | 2
[ad_1]
Source link