Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13457/2016dismissed

Santu Kumar @ Santu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-15Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13457 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -211 Year- 2013 Thana -BARBIGHA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Santu Kumar @ Santu Ram, Son of Jagu Ram, resident of Village Kuserhi, P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-03-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner with Saif claused cut injury on the ear and pierced Saif in the chest of the father of the informant, who subsequently succumbed to the injury.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 9.112.2013. During investigation it was found that the alleged Saif used by the petitioner was seized but with no blood stain hence a false

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13457 of 2016 (3) dt.15-03-2017 2/2 accusation has been levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that only five witnesses have been examined till date. The report of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura dated 25.2.2017 at Flag 'X' suggests that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of three months. Considering the nature of accusation and the time frame transmitted by the learned court below for concluding the trial, this court is not inclined to revise the earlier order. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.

However, it is expected from the trial court to conclude the trial within time frame submitted before this court. If the trial is not concluded within three months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Anil/- U T