Yogendra Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1424 of 2016 ====================================================== Yogendra Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Yugal Yadav, Resident of Village :- Bili Dularpur, P.S.:- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr. Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 131 of 2012, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 723 of 2013 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Lakhisarai. Admittedly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail has already been rejected on merit by a common order dated 07.10.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15996 of 2013 with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29320 of 2013 taking into consideration the direct allegation against the petitioner of making firing at the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1424 of 2016 (3) dt.19-02-2016 2/2 The report, as called for vide order dated 14.01.2016 regarding the stage of trial and the expected time to be taken in conclusion of the trial, has been received through letter no. 07 dated 20.01.2016 from the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Lakhisarai, from which it appears that out of 11 witnesses, 05 witnesses have already been examined and 06 witnesses are yet to be examined and for their production, summons and bailable and non-bailable warrants have been issued and it is reported by the Trial Court that trial may be concluded within six months.

In such circumstances, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within one year, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Vats/- U T