Balister Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48493 of 2014 (3) dt.04-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48493 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2013 Thana -DHANAHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== BALISTER YADAV, SON OF BAUKI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - LACHHNAHI, P.S- DHANAHA, DISTRICT - WEST CHAMPARAN.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Pd.Mehta(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Dhanaha P.S. Case No. 04 of 2013 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 02 dated 02.01.2015, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bagaha, West Champaran, which shows that after framing of charge, five witnesses have already been examined and three non official witnesses, Doctor and the Investigating Officer are yet to be examined and the trial of the petitioner is expected to be concluded within three months.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48493 of 2014 (3) dt.04-02-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for bail of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, Suman Devi, was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40499 of 2013 by this Court and he is in custody since 13.03.2013. It is further submitted that marriage of deceased, Suman Devi, was performed with the petitioner before 20 years prior to occurrence and she committed suicide by hanging herself due to family dispute. 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 four months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of four months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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