Pawan Tiwari@Aman Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8868 of 2015 (3) dt.05-08-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8868 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -60 Year- 2011 Thana -RASULPUR District- SARAN ====================================================== PAWAN TIWARI @ AMAN TIWARY, SON OF RAGHO SHARAN TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - RASULPUR P.S. RASULPUR DIST - SARAN AT CHAPRA.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

.... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renu Kumari(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 786 of 2011 arising out of Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2011 registered under Sections 364, 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 10.04.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39473 of 2013 by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2011 and the charges have already been framed but the trial of the petitioner has not been concluded. It is further submitted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8868 of 2015 (3) dt.05-08-2015 that petitioner is ready to appear before the learned court below on each and every date if he has been granted bail. A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 110 dated 20.04.2015, from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Chapra, which shows that prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the date has been fixed for statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the trial is expected to be concluded within three months, if the defence will not take adjournment for adducing the evidence.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within three months by taking all effective steps. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T