IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J
Dharmendra Kumar Saw, Son Of Late Shivji Saw – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through NCB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
The petitioner renews his prayer for grant of bail.
2. Be it noted that prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected twice on merits by this Court vide orders dated 25.02.2022 and 15.12.2023 passed in B.A. Nos.1311 of 2022 and 7720 of 2023, respectively.
3. The order sheets of the Trial Court has been placed before me.
4. The last date fixed in this case by the Trial Court was 24.01.2025, when one Amit Kumar Bhagat, was examined in part and the case was adjourned. The next date fixed for further evidence of Amit Kumar Bhagat, is 18.03.2025 and 19.03.2025. The Trial Court merely noted that due to paucity of time, the examination is deferred.
5. This Court fails to understand that in spite of the order passed by this Court to conclude the examination and evidence of the witness on the same date when the witness is produced before the Court and his examination in chief has already been done, why the Trial Court has adjourned this case.
6. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2023 in B.A. No.12960 of 2022 (Jishu Tudu Vs. the State of Jharkhand), had held that when the examination in chief of the witness is already concluded, effort should be made to conclude t
The court emphasized the necessity of timely witness examination and adherence to fair trial principles, denying bail due to the trial's progress.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
Bail – Accused has right to fair trial – While a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for defence, inordinate delay in conclusion of trial would infringe right ....
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
Timely cross-examination is essential for a fair trial; delays can compromise witness integrity and affect justice.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to ju....
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.