Munna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 10975 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2018 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== MUNNA SINGH Son of Amarnath Singh Resident of Village- Mahaddichak, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for brevity, APP) appearing for the State of Bihar.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Trial No 4 of 2019 arising out of Bihta Police Station Case No 531 of 2018 dated 14.05.2020 instituted originally for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 326 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, IPC) but later on added with Section 304 (B) of IPC. Petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail for the third time. Earlier two rejections are dated 27.11.2019 and 15.03.2021 in Cr Misc No 55263 of 2019 and Cr Misc No 31523 of 2020. Having regard to the allegation and Fardbayan of the deceased, prior to her death, naming the petitioner (husband) as the person who poured kerosene oil and lit fire on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10975 of 2022(2) dt.20-04-2022 2/2 her body, the prayer for bail was earlier rejected. Petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 14.08.2018. It is further submitted that there is no substantial progress in the trial.

The learned APP submits that from the order dated 27.06.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Danapur rejecting the petitioner's prayer for bail, it is apparent that the private witnesses have already been examined and only doctor and Investigating Officer remained to be examined at the trial. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to take a different view today. Prayer for bail is again rejected.

It is, however, observed that the Court below shall proceed expeditiously with the trial to ensure its conclusion, without granting any undue adjournment or undue delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T