Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29479/2015rejected

Kari Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-29Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29479 of 2015 (3) dt.29-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29479 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -287 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAI RANJAN District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Kari Rai son of Ramdan Rai Resident of village- Raipur Bujurg, Police Station- Sarai Ranjan, District- Samsatipur..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narayan Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2015 Report from the trial court has been received. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarai Ranjan P.S. Case No. 287 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bhagwati Devi the daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner one and half years back and due to non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and chain she was being tortured and assaulted and ultimately she was poisoned to death. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2013 having no criminal antecedent and the trial court has sought 3-4 months time to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29479 of 2015 (3) dt.29-10-2015 conclude the trial in the report dated 18.08.2015 and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial to which the learned APP opposes.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner is serious in nature, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the trial is likely to be concluded within 34 months, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within three months, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T