Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6683/2016rejected

Surendra Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-09Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6683 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2012 Thana -GOVINDPUR District- NAWADA ====================================================== Surendra Rajbanshi Son of Antu Rajbanshi, Resident of Village - Rahmbigha, P.S. - Govindpur, District - Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 71 of 2012 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 307 of the I.P.C. and later on, section 302 of the I.P.C. was added corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2013/147 of 2013 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Nawada.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected twice on merit vide order dated 16.04.2014 and 08.04.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39394 of 2013 and 44451 of 2014 respectively by this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2013, but the trial has not yet been concluded.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6683 of 2016 (3) dt.09-03-2016 2/2 On perusal of the report as received vide Letter No. 68 dated 25.02.2016, from the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Nawada, it appears that only Investigating Officer and Medical Officer are yet to be examined in this case, regarding which steps have been taken by sending summon and letter to the Superintendent of Police on 10.11.2015.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months by taking all effective efforts. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T