Anil Ram v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3680 of 2018 (3) dt.28-03-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3680 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2013 Thana -ROHTAS District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Anil Ram, Son of Late Ram Bachan Ram, Resident of Village- Kerpa, Police Station- Amjhore, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with S. Tr. No. 420 of 2017 arising out of Rohtas (Amjhore) P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 registered under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 12.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33919 of 2016 by this Court.

A report regarding the present stage of trial has been received through letter no. 58 dated 07.02.2018, from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3680 of 2018 (3) dt.28-03-2018 court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, which shows that out of eleven charge sheeted witnesses, ten witnesses have already been examined and on 14.06.2017 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall P.W.4 for crossexamination and the trial of the petitioner is expected to be concluded within three months.

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 three months by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within aforesaid period of three months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T