Raju Prasad @ Raju Prasad Gupta @ Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42191 of 2014 (3) dt.25-03-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42191 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -46 Year- 2013 Thana -OBRA District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== RAJU PRASAD @ RAJU PRASAD GUPTA @ RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJESH GUPTA SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD @ RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - OBRA, P.S. OBRA, DIST.-AURANGABAD .... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 352 of 2013/ 272 of 2013 arising out of Obra P.S. Case No. 46 of 2013 registered under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 11 dated 07.01.2015, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad, which shows that charge has not been framed and the accused was not produced from the jail custody from Daudnagar Sub Jail and in this connection show cause has also been issued to the Jail
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42191 of 2014 (3) dt.25-03-2015 Superintendent, Daudnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, Rekha Kumari, was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 12.02.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32020 of 2013 by this Court with direction to expedite the trial of the petitioner as early as possible but till today charge has not been framed. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2013. 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 within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T