Sunil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19875 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2018 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SUNIL PASWAN SON OF MR. DIL CHAND PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAHILA, P.S.- GAIGHAT, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-10-2021 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No.277 of 2019 arising out of Gaighat P.S. Case No.376/18 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 120(B), 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier, prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 06.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No.53236/19 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant bail application on 15.03.2021 for grant of bail. Vide order dated 27.08.2021, a report was called for regarding the stage of trial. In compliance thereof, a report kept at flag 'A' dated 02.09.2021 has been sent by the learned 10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur whereby he has submitted that no prosecution witnesses appeared before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19875 of 2021(3) dt.25-10-2021 2/2 the court to record his evidence. All these proceedings were conducted in the court of the then A.S.J.-IV who has now been designated as the Special Court (POCSO Act). It is further submitted that the case record of this case was received in this court on 07.10.2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the prosecution witnesses are not appearing in the court as the court is not functioning in the normal physical mode. He further submitted that the trial will be concluded in one year time, if granted. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order. The S.S.P., Muzaffarpur, is directed to take steps for production of the prosecution witnesses for their examination, as and when the date is fixed, so that the trial may be concluded within the time indicated herein above.

Let a copy of this order be sent to S.S.P., Muzaffarpur. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T