Premdhar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33446 of 2015 (3) dt.05-08-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33446 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2013 Thana -MANER District- PATNA ====================================================== Premdhar Rai, S/o Late Chandrika Rai, Resident of village- Nakta Diyara, P.O. + P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

Presently R/o Haripur Colony (Near Railway Line, East of Digha Post Office), P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Jee Mishra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 19 of 2013 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 302, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide orders dated 26.03.2014 and 17.12.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34627 of 2013 and Cr. Misc. No. 48816 of 2014 respectively by this Court taking into consideration that allegation against the petitioner who shot fire at the deceased, Mukesh Kumar. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33446 of 2015 (3) dt.05-08-2015 17.01.2013.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 227 dated 29.07.2015, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Danapur, Patna, which shows that charge against the accused persons has been framed on 12.03.2015 and summons to wintesses have already been issued on 09.06.2015 and also subject to depend upon the appearance of the P.Ws., the time of about one year is required to be consumed in concluding the trial of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously by taking all effective steps. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T