Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25440/2015rejected

Hari Dhangar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-08Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25440 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -122 Year- 2013 Thana -CHAKIA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Hari Dhangar S/o Late Langtu Dhangar, of Vill.- Ambedkar Nagar, Dhangar Toli, P.S. Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 27.05.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 13259 of 2014 on the ground that the informant has already been examined and now only two witnesses are left to be examined, who are the I.O. and the Doctor, and as per observation in order dated 27.05.2014, a bail petition was filed in the trial court which was rejected by order dated 18.03.2015. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 08.05.2013 and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the petitioner is the assailant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25440 of 2015 (3) dt.08-10-2015 2/2 and trial is likely to be concluded within three months which is evident from the report dated 28.07.2015 of the learned trial Judge.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration for prayer of bail again, prayer of bail is hereby, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to take all possible steps to conclude the trial by examining rest of the witnesses as early as possible, after taking this case on priority basis within two months, failing which, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U