Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16449/2021dismissed

Ajeet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-25Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16449 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2017 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== Ajeet Paswan, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Nand Paswan, Resident of Village - Bakdi Dhamaul, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

3. The petitioner, who is in custody since 06.04.2017, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 611 of 2017 arising out of Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 137/2017, having earlier been rejected by order dated 04.12.2019 in Cr. Misc. No.42484 of 2019 for the alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16449 of 2021(3) dt.25-08-2021 2/2 offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2021, a status report dated 09.07.2021 has been received from the learned trial court in which it has been stated, inter alia, that out of nine charge-sheet witnesses, seven have been examined and only two remained to be examined. It has been assured that the case would be completed within three months after restoration of the normalcy of the effect of COVID-19 Pandemic.

5. Having heard the parties, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the matter of granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 2 hereinabvove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T