Sanjeet Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9987 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2016 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar Choudhary, Son of Chandra Kant Choudhary Resident of Village - Dhepura, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District -Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar, ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikash Mohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 389 of 2016, arising out of Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on 03.08.2016 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25135 of 2016 taking into consideration that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to shot fire at the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2016, but the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9987 of 2019(3) dt.01-05-2019 2/2 trial of the petitioner has not been concluded as yet, while charge has been framed on 09.08.2016.

A report, as called for, has been received to the Court of Addl. Session Judge, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur through letter No. 165, dated 16.03.2019, which indicates that out of 08 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses have been examined and in this case and he expected that the trial would be concluded within three months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on merit, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected. However, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T