- (1.) 03/11.05.2012 The petitioner is an accused in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No. 74/08 [G.R. No. 4353/2008 and S.T. No. 339/2009], registered under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 325/ 307/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code; pending in the Court of Shri B.N. Pandey, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge - XIII, Ranchi. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2008 (para-4) and the other co-accused namely Ranjan Oraon, Ritesh Oraon and Dukhan Oraon who faced trial vide S.T. No. 725/2009, have been acquitted from the Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide Judgment dated 11.08.2011. The other co-accused namely Lodo Oraon and Dwarika Oraon have been granted bail vide B.A. No. 1228 of 2012 and B.A. No. 9513 of 2011 respectively.
(2.) IT is surprising that the date of occurrence is 08.11.2008 and according to version of the petitioner, he is in custody since 10.11.2008, then why the case of this petitioner was not disposed of along with the other accused who have been acquitted vide S.T. No. 725 of 2009. The next point which I have noticed from the impugned order dated 19.03.2012, passed in S.T. No. 339 of 2009, that application for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide B.A. NO. 4047 of 2009, dated 26.08.2009, but it is concealed in para-2 of this bail petition. In view of the above, call for a detailed report from the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi with regard to stage of trial of different accused persons who have been chargesheeted in the case. He is also directed to report as to why the case of present petitioner was not disposed of along with S.T. No. 725 of 2009. The report must reach to this Court on or before 15.06.2012. The learned counsel as well as deponent who sworn the affidavit, are also directed to furnish the explanation on or before 15.06.2012 for furnishing incorrect details in para-2 of the application. The Stamp Reporter has also not pointed out this fact that earlier an application for bail of the petitioner was filed, which was rejected and, therefore, concerned Stamp Reporter is also directed to give explanation within two weeks.;