Ajai Kumar Maurya @ Karan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2844 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2014 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Ajai Kumar Maurya @ Karan, son of Dhannu Lal Maurya, resident of Village- Phoolwariy Kotula Road, P.S. Kant, District- Varanasi, U.P. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.8422 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2014 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Ashish Kumar Srivastava Son of late Ashok Kumar Srivastava Resident of Village- Phulwariya, Police Station Kaint, District Varanasi U.P.. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.2844 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh, APP (In Cr.Misc. No.8422 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Thakur, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners seek bail in Durgawati P.S. Case No. 145/2014 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2/15/221/16, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2844 of 2017 (4) dt.19-04-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have renewed their prayer for bail only because the trial has not yet been concluded, but from perusal of the record, it appears that prosecution closed its case much earlier and the case was fixed for defense evidence after recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defense examined 04 witnesses and the same was closed on 18.10.2016. The case was thereafter fixed for argument. The prosecution closed the argument on 20.02.2017 and since then the case is pending for the argument of the defense. The case is pending only due to lingering attitude of the defense.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T