Pankaj Yadav @ Guddu Yadav@ Guddu Ray @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7521 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2020 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== PANKAJ YADAV @ GUDDU YADAV@ GUDDU RAY @ GUDDU Son of Late Narsingh Yadav Resident of Village - Daulatpur, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP Ms.Malti Kumari, Advocate Mr.Rajendra Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-05-2022 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.177 of 2020, Sessions Trial No.135 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 448, 323, 302, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Vide order dated 16.02.2022, a report was called for, regarding the stage of trial. In compliance thereof, a report sent

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7521 of 2022(4) dt.11-05-2022 2/2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Bhojpur at Ara, dated 25.02.2022, is kept at flag 'Y', whereby it is submitted that altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution and the time likely to be taken in conclusion of the trial is within four months.

Considering the submissions made in the report, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner named above. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T