Chandrakant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34086 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2013 Thana -BEUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Chandrakant Kumar Son of Sri Vijay Singh Resident of village - Bishunpur Pakri, P.S. Beur, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Chandra Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with S. Tr. No. 493 of 2014 arising out of Beur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2013 registered under Sections 304(B) and 306/34 of the I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Patna.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, has falsely been implicated in this case rather the deceased consumed poison, as she was seen in objectionable position just after 15 days of the marriage. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2013, but till now not a single

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34086 of 2015 (3) dt.12-08-2015 2/2 witness has been examined in this case in the trial Court. The report, as received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Patna vide Letter No. 171 dated 01.08.2015, reveals that charge has been framed on 11.09.2014 and summon and bailable warrant has already been issued against the charge-sheeted witnesses, but not single witness has been examined in this case, but it is expected that this case may be disposed of within a period of six months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application stands rejected. However, Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. If trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T