Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57843/2015dismissed

Mohan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-09Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57843 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2014 Thana -MAHILA PS District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Mohan Yadav son of Satya Narayan Yadav Resident of Village Udamarsksha, Ps. Mufassil, Katihar, District Katihar,. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail is languishing in custody since 25.11.2014 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(ii) (v) of the S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The earlier bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 6477 of 2015 since the said Coordinate Bench is not available due to medical exigency and the matter has been placed before this Court in view of the administrative order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 08.03.2016.

The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix while working in the agriculture field, she was ravished by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57843 of 2015 (2) dt.09-03-2016 the petitioner on 21.07.2014, when she was threatened not to disclose the incident, but again the petitioner made an attempt to ravish her on 31.07.2014, thereafter the present case was lodged on 03.08.2014. The petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months after moving the learned trial court. The impugned order suggests that five charge-sheeted witnesses have already been examined and only I.O. has been remained to be examined, this Court is not inclined to interfere.

It is expected from the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. It is expected from the Superintendent of Police, Katihar to get the I.O. produce before the next dated fixed by the trial court.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Katihar.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) P.K./- U T