Kedar Dom v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5283 of 2017 (2) dt.15-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5283 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2011 Thana -RAMGARH District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Kedar Dom, Son of Ram Briksh Dom, resident of Village- Isarhi, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier thrice rejected vide order dated 20.06.2012, 04.05.2016 and 14.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16509 of 2012, 12157 of 2016 and 33025 of 2016 respectively, on the ground that the trial has not been concluded within time as directed by this Court and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 07.02.2012. the petitioner is the husband and he has tried his best to save the life of his wife but she could not survive.

Learned APP submits that inquest report has not been exhibited and for that the trial is pending.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that practically all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5283 of 2017 (2) dt.15-02-2017 evidence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur in S. Tr. No. 239 of 2012 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 104 of 2011, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T