Sitesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11539 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2021 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Sitesh Kumar, S/O Dhaneshwar Singh Resident Of Village- Baltara, P.S.- Gogri (Poura), District- Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek bail as earlier his bail application was rejected by order dated 30.03.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.64181 of 2021 and thereafter, by order dated 09.11.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.58998 of 2022.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 12.04.2023, a report was called for from the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court by its Letter No.57 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023 has sent its report and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that charges against the petitioner has been framed and altogether 15 prosecution witnesses are there, on whom summons have been issued, but none of them have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11539 of 2023(4) dt.03-05-2023 2/2 appeared, as such, the case is pending for evidence. The learned Additional P. P. opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is the husband and is in custody since 28.07.2021 and the charges have been framed recently on 06.01.2023.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional P. P., the Court, for the present, is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail being the husband. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the event, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order for not fault of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T