Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20379/2015rejected

Laxman Singh @ Lakshuman Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-01Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20379 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2012 Thana -AGIAUN BAZAR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Laxman Singh @ Lakshman Singh, Son of Kanglu Singh, Resident of Village - Baburahi Tola, P.S. - Agiaon Bazar, District - Bhojpur at Arrah (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2012 arising out of Agiaon Bazar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2012 registered under sections 304(B) and 34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of A.D.J.-IIIrd, Bhojpur at Arrah. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that prayer of the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, for bail was earlier rejected vide Cr. Misc. No. 40095 of 2012 on 07.03.2014 by this Court on merit. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2012. Admittedly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court on merit. The report, as received from the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah vide Letter No. 47

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20379 of 2015 (3) dt.01-07-2015 2/2 dated 13.05.2015, shows that altogether eight witnesses have already been examined and the case is only pending for the evidence of I.O., for which non-bailable warrant has already been issued and the case is likely to be concluded within six months. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months and 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