Sanjay Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17052 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2012 Thana -CHAURI District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Sanjay Paswan, son of Late Ramji Paswan, resident of Village- Andhari, P.S.- Chauri, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------- 17-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.266 of 2015, arising out of Chauri P.S. Case No.4 of 2012, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah. Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. No.40418 of 2013 considering the direct allegation against the petitioner to shot fire at the neck of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2012 but the trial in respect

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17052 of 2017 (3) dt.17-05-2017 2/2 of the petitioner is pending for the prosecution evidence. A report, as called for vide order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court regarding the present stage of the case and the expected time within which the trial of the case is likely to be concluded, has been received from the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, vide letter no.34 dated 05.05.2017 from which it appears that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined. The trial court expected that the trial of the petitioner may be concluded within six months.

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T