D.N. Patel, J.@mdashThis application has been preferred under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the
offence registered with Barwadih P.S. Case No. 36 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 186(A) of 2004 (S.T. No. 86 of 2009), for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Latehar.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, a case against the
present applicant. Previously also on three different occasions, bail applications bearing B.A. No. 953 of 2009, B.A. No. 2666 of 2010 and B.A.
No. 9053 of 2010, preferred by the present applicant, have been dismissed on merits vide order dated 17th April, 2009, 23rd April, 2010 and
21st January, 2011 respectively. Paragraph 3 of the order passed by this Court in B.A. No. 953 of 2009, on 17th April, 2009 reads as under:
3. Looking to the evidence collected during the course of investigation and looking to the involvement of the present applicant in the offence as
alleged by the prosecution and also looking to the recovery of sizeable number of fire arms and cartridge and also looking to the fact that there are
more than half a dozen antecedents of the present applicant and it also appears that the Petitioner was absconding from the date of offence i.e. in
April, 2004 and he was remanded on 19th June, 2008 i.e. after four years. The Petitioner was not traceable, though he was named in the F.I.R. In
these circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail otherwise he will not be available at the time of trial or he may
tamper with evidence.
3. Thus, there are more than half a dozen antecedents of the present applicant and he was also absconding, as stated hereinabove. Moreover, the
trial has already been started and few of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are police
witnesses. The concerned police officer is also called in the open Court and he has assured this Court that they are going to examine further
prosecution witnesses, who are police witnesses.
4. Looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present applicant is involved in the offences, as
alleged by the prosecution and also keeping in the mind the earlier antecedents of the applicant and the fact that previously on three different
occasions, bail applications, preferred by him, have been dismissed on merits, I am not inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail, otherwise,
if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there are all chances that he may not be available at the time of trial or he may tamper with the evidences. There
is no substance in this bail application and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
5. In the facts of the present case, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that most of the witnesses are police witness except two, who are witnesses of
Panchnama. All care should have been taken by the Home Department that their witnesses may be examined in time. It is submitted by learned
Counsel for both the sides that in this case, last witness was examined in the month of January, 2010.
6. I therefore direct the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi that the police witness must be examined earliest and
necessary circular may be issued to this regard especially for this case, where most of the police witnesses are belonging to the State of Jharkhand
and few of them are belonging to C.R.P.F., who have been transferred out of the State of Jharkhand, as submitted by learned A.P.P. Their
presence can also secure efficiently by the Investigating Officer so that the trial, pending against the applicant, may be over within least possible
time.