LAWS(JHAR)-2005-5-13

DRONEDU JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On May 10, 2005
DRONEDU JHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 22-5-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this application are that this application has been filed to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court seeking protection of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which is being violated by holding trial of the petitioner in the matter of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 183 of 2003 dated 22-3-2003 registered under Section 304 (BG) of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 793 of 2003.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the legal right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is being violated in the case of the petitioner, as this petitioner is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003 and facing trail under Section 304-B IPC on the basis of written report of the maternal uncle of the deceased, several persons including this petitioner were made accused and the I.O. after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against this petitioner only but did not sent up the other persons for trial. On the basis of submission of charge-sheet, the learned Court below also took cognizance against this petitioner and discharged the other remaining persons against whom final form was submitted, and they were not sent up for trial. Charges were framed and trial proceeded. After lodging of the FIR and till now four times bail petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner, and all the times bail petition was rejected; some time with observation to conclude the trial within six moths, and when trial was not concluded within six months then again bail petition was filed after expiry of the period of six months and that time also the bail petition was dismissed with similar observation to conclude the trial within six months.