Deoki Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12281 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -69 Year- 2015 Thana -ROUH District- NAWADA ====================================================== Deoki Yadav, Son of Late Chhotu Yadav, resident of village - Garura, P.S. Roh, District - Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : M/s. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, Senior Advocate, Manish Kumar No.13 & Rohit Kumar, Advocates.
For the State : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------ 19-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.11 of 2016, arising out of Roh P.S. Case No.69 of 2015, registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected twice by this Court, firstly, vide order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No.55099 of 2015 and,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12281 of 2017 (3) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 secondly, vide order dated 21.09.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No.41144 of 2016 on merit. The petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2015 but only one prosecution witness has been examined till date after framing of the charge on 21.05.2016. The report, as called for vide order dated 21.06.2017, has been received from the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Civil Courts, Nawada, through letter no.257/17 dated 28.06.2017 from which it appears that after framing of the charge on 21.05.2016, out of the five chargesheeted witnesses, one witness was examined on 16.09.2016 and the trial court expects that the trial of the petitioner may be concluded within 11 months.
I find no reason to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail and, accordingly, his prayer for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, within one year by taking all effective steps. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T