KRISHNA SAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are not named in the F.I.R and after six months from the date of occurrence statement of two witnesses namely Jageshwar Mahto and Jagdish Mahto was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of statement of these two witnesses the petitioners have been made accused in this case and as such, they deserve to enlarge on bail. Learned counsel for the State submitted that they have directly named by two witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as such, they do not deserve to enlarge on bail.

(3.) Considering the same, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Hence, their prayer for bail is rejected. If trial is not started, the Court will see that the trial starts as early as possible and after commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, the Court will see that the trial concludes within a period of two months after the commencement of the trial. If the trial is not concluded by that time, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after two months.