Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22678 of 2017 (5) dt.08-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22678 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2016 Thana -HAZIPUR INDUSTRIAL DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Vijay Kumar, son of Rambriksh Singh, resident of village - Nawada Khurd, PS Ganga Bridge, Distt. Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Soban Asghar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2017, arising out of Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016, registered under Sections 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 420 and 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Vaishali at Hajipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 21.01.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2320 of 2017 by this Court and he is in custody since 27.10.2017. It is further submitted that while the charge has been framed against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22678 of 2017 (5) dt.08-11-2017 petitioner on 14.02.2014, but up till now, out of seven witnesses, only two witnesses, namely, Surajdev Rai and Dilip Rai, have been examined on 04.03.2017 and 16.03.2017.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T