Arbind Kumar Singh @ Arbind Singh @ Tufani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14597 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -42 Year- 2013 Thana -NATHNAGAR District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Arbind Kumar Singh @ Arbind Singh @ Tufani S/o Sri Laxmi Mandal Resident of Village-Nath Nagar -Dighi, PS Madhusudanpur, district Bhaglapur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nath Nagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No.42 of 2013 registered under Sections 364, 120B/34, 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of 7th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected twice by this Court and lastly vide order 22.04.201 passed in Criminal Misc. No.14824 of 2013. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent is in custody since 28.02.2013 and co-accused Badri Tanti has already been granted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14597 of 2016 (3) dt.04-05-2016 2/2 bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38739 of 2014.

The report as called for vide order dated 06.04.2016 has been received from the court of 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur vide letter No. 146, dated 27.04.2016 which shows that out of 18 chargesheet witnesses, five witnesses have been examined and the Court has expected to conclude the trial within two months after examination of witnesses.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected. However, the learned Court below is directed to take effective stapes to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) manish/- U T