Madneshwar Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52856 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2000 Thana -PANDARAK District- PATNA ====================================================== Madneshwar Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh, son of Lachho Singh, resident of Village + P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar(App) Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

14-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madan Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sandeep Kumar Gautam, learned counsel who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of informant.

The petitioner, who is in custody in Sessions Trial No. 1166 of 2000 (arising out of Pandarak P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000) registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, has prayed for grant of bail.

Earlier, on number of occasions, the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for approximately eight years, however; till date, trial has not concluded. He further tried to persuade the Court that there is serious doubt on the prosecution

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52856 of 2015 (2) dt.14-12-2015 2/2 case, on the ground that F.I.R. was lodged on 08-07-2000, whereas, F.I.R. was received in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate much belatedly. On this ground, he has prayed for grant of bail. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner once had jumped bail, which has been noticed by this Court while rejecting his prayer for bail on 19-02-2014, vide Cr.Misc. No. 1966 of 2014. He further submits that trial has already been concluded and the case is fixed for final argument. Since on merit, repeatedly the prayer for bail has already been rejected, there is no point to take any note of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on merit of the case. Ofcourse, he is in custody for a long time. Fact remains that the case has been fixed for final argument. In that view of the matter, there is no point to consider the prayer for bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

The Court expects that the trial court may take steps so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay, in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since long. (Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T