Dina Nath Prasad @ Dinanath v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16567 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2018 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== DINA NATH PRASAD @ DINANATH S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Resident of Village- Surha, P.S.- Muffasil in the district of East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Balgovind Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 24-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.
2. This is the fourth attempt on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since 05.07.2018 for grant of bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 100 of 2018, having earlier been dismissed by orders dated 18.12.2019, 15.01.2019 and 10.04.2019 in Cr. Misc. Nos. 63823 of 2019, 73419 of 2018 and 9214 of 2019 respectively, for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with causing injury to the father of the informant, resulting in his death. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already suffered more than two years and eight months in custody since 05.07.2018.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2021, a status
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16567 of 2020(6) dt.24-03-2021 2/2 report has been received, inter alia, stating that after framing of charges, the trial has proceeded and all independent witnesses except Chandan Kumar, Doctor and I.O. have been examined. The documents on behalf of the prosecution including the post mortem report have been exhibited and now the case is ready for disposal.
5. Learned APP appears and has been heard.
6. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged as well as the stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed with the observation that the trial be concluded expeditiously.
7. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Vikash Jain, J) HR/- U T