Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19105/2015rejected

Lalji Yadav @ Laldi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2015-04-29Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19105 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -46 Year- 2014 Thana -SHERGHATI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. LALJI YADAV @ LALDI YADAV Son of Deo Charan Yadav resident of village- Dhab Chiraiya Tola Vijay Nagar, P.S. Sherghati, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.N.Thakur(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 46 of 2014 registered under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant of the case has alleged that the petitioner overpowered her and finding her alone in the room ravished her. The prosecutrix has supported her allegation in course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in the case.

It has been contended that during the pendency of the case, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati has committed the case of the petitioner to the court of Sessions for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19105 of 2015 (2) dt.29-04-2015 2/2 trial and charges have also been framed. However, till date no witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Considering the direct and specific allegation made by the informant against the petitioner, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2014 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 25107 of 2014. I see no reason to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the application is dismissed once again. However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T