Savitri Ratho, J
1. The prayer for bail of the petitioner in BLAPL No.12111 of 2023 had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has absconded for 13 years but liberty had been granted to the petitioner to move for bail afresh if there was delay in framing of charge.
2. Perused the report dated 10.07.2024 of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karanjia where he has stated that on account of typographical error, the date on which charge was framed has been typed as 12.06.2024 in place of 12.01.2024, in the rejection order dated 17.02.2024. It has also been stated that no witness has been examined in the case and the case is posted to 12.07.2024, i.e., today for hearing.
3. From the report of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karanjia, it appears that charge has been framed in the month of January, 2024. So, there is no delay in framing of charge. But it appears that trial has not commenced even though six months have elapsed from the date of framing of charge.
4. Mr.Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 22 chargesheeted witnesses, 18 witnesses have been examined in the trial faced by the co-accused in S.T. Case No.02 of 2011 in which they were acquitted. Out of these 18 witnesses, 06 witnesses have expired. The petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2023.
5. As the petitioner has avoided arrest for more than 13 years, I am not inclined to allow his prayer for bail. But considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 10 months and charge has been framed in the case, the learned trial Court is requested to take steps for completion of trial within a period of six months if there is no other legal impediment.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court by Registry immediately.
…………………………..
