Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29934/2017rejected

Sumer Sharma @ Sumeshar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-26Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29934 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29934 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -219 Year- 2014 Thana -CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- SARAN ====================================================== Sumer Sharma @ Sumeshar Sharma Son of Late Sukhdeo Sharma, Resident of Village- Sanha Newaji Tola, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, DistrictSaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail, which was earlier rejected twice vide order dated 02.03.2016 and 23.11.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53495 of 2015 and 47801 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 24.10.2014 and up-till now the trial has not been concluded, however, there was direction to conclude the same within six months and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that in FSL report aluminum phosphide was detected and there is allegation of demand of dowry repeatedly by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29934 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner, again his prayer for bail stands rejected in S.Tr. No. 487 of 2015 pending in the court of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

However, considering the period of detention, learned trial court is 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, failing which, the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail.

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