Amrendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16886 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2011 Thana -MAJHAHGARH District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Amrendra Singh, Son of Late Harihar Singh, Resident of VillageMalikana, Police Station- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The application is for grant of bail in connection with Manjhagarh PS case no. 62 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 307, 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that earlier also, the petitioner has moved for regular bail before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Cr.Misc. no. 45418 of 2016 and he is languishing in custody for more than five months. It is further submitted that the trial is still going on and uptil now, only four witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for evidence, as such petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Heard learned A.P.P. also. Learned A.P.P. has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16886 of 2017 (2) dt.08-04-2017 2/2 opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides. Considering the fact that earlier also, the petitioner's prayer for bail is rejected and this time also, he has not taken any new ground and also considering the period of detention, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, his prayer for bail is rejected.

However, a submission has been made by learned counsel for petitioner that the case is of the year 2011 and uptil now, only four witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for evidence, which is some sort of stain on the entire judicial system, as such, the Trial Court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and try to conclude the same within a period of six months from today. At the same time, Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj is directed to ensure production of witnesses on each date, fixed by the Trial Court. Further, the Trial Court is also directed to send monthly report to this Court with regard to progress of the trial. It is made clear that any lapse on the part of the authorities concerned, will be viewed seriously. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) rinkee/- U T