Karan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5723 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2016 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Karan Sharma, Son of Shyam Prasad Sharma Resident of village-Kharari (Khairadin),P.S.Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar, ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 10 of 2017, arising out of Nokha P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016, registered under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased and he is in custody since 23.08.2016, but the trial of the petitioner has not been concluded as yet. A report, as called for, has been received to the Court of 4th Addl. Session Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram through letter No. 25, dated 29.03.2019, which indicates that out of 06

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5723 of 2019(4) dt.01-05-2019 2/2 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined and in this case on application of prosecution three persons have been made accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. summons have been issued against them and he expected that the trial would be concluded within six months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T