Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18965/2015rejected

Md. Mistar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-05-13Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18965 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S..Case No. -95 Year- 2013 Thana -BALIA District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Md. Mistar, Son of Md. Gaya, Resident of village - Kasba, Police Station - Balia, in the District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma For the State : Mr.Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the Informant : Md. Faheinuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 618 of 2013 arising out of Balia P.S. Case No. 95 of 2013 registered under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Begusarai. Earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected vide Cr. Misc. No. 33675 of 2013 on 11.03.2014 by this Court on merit taking into consideration the nature of allegation with direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial of the petitioner. The report, as called for from the Additional Sessions Judge-IVth, Begusarai, discloses that out of 10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18965 of 2015 (3) dt.13-05-2015 2/2 witnesses, six witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for evidence of remaining witnesses, including I.O. and Doctor and also the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no fresh ground to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within four months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T