Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4472/2015rejected

Ghanshyam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2015-02-03Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4472 of 2015 (2) dt.03-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4472 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2007 Thana -SAHEBPUR KAMAL District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Ghanshyam Yadav Son of Arjun Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Dayal(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is in jail custody since 06.11.2014 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2007 and the petitioner could be remanded in this case on 06.11.2014 i.e. too after acquittal of other accused persons and now, petitioner wants to take benefit of above stated acquittal of other accused as well as grant of privilege of bail to one Roshan Kumar but in my view, taking note of previous conduct of the petitioner, it is not a fit case in which the petitioner should be released on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 30 of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4472 of 2015 (2) dt.03-02-2015 2007 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai stands rejected.

However, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai/concerned court is directed to commit the case of the petitioner to the court of sessions in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, if the same has not been committed as yet and after commitment, the concerned sessions court shall take steps to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within nine months. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within nine months from the date of commitment order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U T