Chandranand Rishideo And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4016 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2017 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Chandranand Rishideo and Ors Late Ganauri Rishideo Resident of VillageDila Mohan, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Farbishganj (Simraha), District- Araria. 2.

Dhauli Devi Chandranand Rishideo Resident of Village- Dila Mohan, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Farbishganj (Simraha), District- Araria. 3.

Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Rishideo Chandranand Rishideo Resident of Village- Dila Mohan, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Farbishganj (Simraha), DistrictAraria. 4.

Minu Kumari Chandranand Rishideo Resident of Village- Dila Mohan, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Farbishganj (Simraha), District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners are in jail custody since 22.02.2017 in connection with Farbishganj ( Simraha) P.S.Case No. 114 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are named in the first information report and according to the prosecution case, the dead body of the deceased was found inside the house of the petitioners. The post mortem report of the deceased reveals that injuries were found

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4016 of 2019(3) dt.29-03-2019 2/2 on the person of the deceased. The trial court has reported that out of nine prosecution witnesses five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and to ensure the presence of remaining prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court has taken all the necessary steps. However, the learned trial court has reported that four months time is required to conclude the trial of the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the bail prayer of the petitioners stands rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioners within the above stated period of four months. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioners is not concluded within the above stated period of four months, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail before trial court itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U T