Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16277/2021rejected

Firoz Uddin @ Firoz Alam @ Dilip v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-18Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16277 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-532 Year-2018 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== FIROZ UDDIN @ FIROZ ALAM @ DILIP S/O NASIRUDDIN @ SAMO KHAN R/O VILLAGE-KHAP, P.S-BODHGAYA (CHERKI), DISTRICTGAYA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Bodh Gaya (Cherki) P.S. Case No. 532 of 2018 registered under Sections 302, 34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of C.J.M., Gaya.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 68037 of 2019 on 04.08.2020, as detailed in Annexure-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit.

Petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2019.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that earlier

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16277 of 2021(3) dt.18-08-2021 2/2 prayer of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court on merit. There is no fresh ground in the present case. On perusal of report, as called for from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Gaya, it appears that out of five chargesheeted witnesses, three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.

Remaining two witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer are yet to be examined. Summons have already been issued and next date has already been fixed for evidence of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case as also the report of the trial court, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is again rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T