Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58397/2015rejected

Gopal Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-10Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58397 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -203 Year- 2012 Thana -GOVINDGANJ DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Gopal Sahani, Son of Chhathu Sahani, R/o Village Daksin Telua Tola, Mujwaniya, P.S. Nautan, District West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ataur Rahman (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Sessions Trial Case no. 160 of 2013 (Gobindganj Areraj P.S. Case No. 203 of 2012, registered under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, West Champaran.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier refused on 13.08.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31400 of 2014 on merit taking into consideration the nature of allegation. The petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2012 and the trial of the petitioner has not concluded as yet.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58397 of 2015 (3) dt.10-02-2016 2/2 A report, as called for, regarding the present stage of trial, has been received from the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari vide Letter no. 135, dated 27.01.2016, which disclosed that at present out of nine witnesses, seven witnesses have already been examined in this case and evidence of remaining two witnesses is likely to be concluded as earliest. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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