Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25442/2015dismissed

Uday Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-02Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25442 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2013 Thana -PANDARAK District- PATNA =========================================================== Uday Yadav, Son of Jano Yadav @ Janardan Yadav resident of VillageChhaperatar (Meghagachhi), Police Station- Pandarak, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mushtaque Alam, A.P.P.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in Pandarak P.S. Case No. of dated 08.06.2013 instituted under Sections 147/148/149/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 04.12.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 15938 of 2014.

On the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court earlier, by order dated 08.04.2016, had directed the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Barh to ensure that the petitioner is taken to a medical practitioner of his choice at Patna for which the petitioner shall bear the cost and depending on the advise of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25442 of 2015 dt.02-09-2016 2/2 doctor, the treatment of the petitioner shall be continued in the Jail. Pursuant to the same, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Barh. The report shows his condition to be normal. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to grant bail to the petitioner as even on merits the case having been considered earlier was rejected and there has been no change in the intervening period except for efflux of time. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a long time, the Court below shall ensure that the trial is expedited and concluded within nine months positively. Registry shall communicate the order to the Court below through Fax also latest by 5th September, 2016. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date N/A