Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20879/2020bail rejected

Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-12-02Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20879 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2017 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Son of Subodh Kumar @ Subodh Yadav @ Subodh Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Punthar, P.S.- Narhat, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sangeet Deokuliar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Earlier bail prayer of the petitioner was twice rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

However, learned trial court has reported that out of nine prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses including informant have already been examined. The case is pending for recording the statement of other prosecution witnesses. The trial court has reported that due to present situation of Covid-19, the trial of the petitioner could not be concluded.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submission of the parties, I do not think it proper to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20879 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2020 2/2 extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 32 of 2017 arising out of Narhat P.S.Case No. 145 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST cum 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada stands rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order through virtual mode/ regular court which ever is suitable and convenient to the court below. It is also made clear that if trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period of six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail in accordance with law.

N.K/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) U T