Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13101/2017rejected

Dilip Kumar Mandal @ Dilip Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13101 of 2017 (2) dt.22-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13101 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -241 Year- 2015 Thana -GOPALPUR District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Mandal @ Dilip Mandal, Son of Bilash Mandal, Resident of Village- Rangra, Police Station- Rangra Out Post (O.P.) District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected vide order dated 28.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4193 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 04.11.2015, besides suspicion and confessional statement there is nothing against the petitioner and co-accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mandal has been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 9800 of 2016 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The trial has not been concluded as per direction given by this Court and up-till-now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined, resulting, in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13101 of 2017 (2) dt.22-03-2017 that the petitioner was seen by the witnesses taking away Mikki Kumar Mandal and further the petitioner has confessed his guilt that he and co-accused Santosh Kumar killed the victim boy and threw the dead body in the river.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

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