Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49324/2014rejected

Rajnish Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2015-04-15Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49324 of 2014 (4) dt.15-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49324 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -320 Year- 2011 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== RAJNISH SAHANI S/O;BALDEO SAHANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KORLAHIYA, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR,DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 320 of 2011 registered under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 31 dated 25.03.2015 from the court of Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Sitamarhi, which shows that charge has already been framed and summons were issued on the prosecution witnesses but up till now no prosecution witness has been examine and the trial is expected to be concluded within one year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49324 of 2014 (4) dt.15-04-2015 prayer for bail of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 19.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33970 of 2013 with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the petitioner but till now there is no progress in the trial court and he is in custody since 04.06.2013.

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