Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29314/2017rejected

Suresh Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29314 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2015 Thana -CHHABILAPUR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Suresh Rajbanshi, son of Chhote Lal Rajbanshi, resident of village - Chaurma Balganga, P.S. Nardiganj, District - Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Smt. Pronati Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 06.11.2015, 27.07.2016 and 18.01.2017 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 32620 of 2015, Cr. Misc. No. 24042 of 2016 and Cr. Misc. No. 770 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 27.03.2015 and no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner, in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and the petitioner was given liberty to renew the prayer of bail. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner was identified during T.I.P. by two witnesses and the trial is in progress.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29314 of 2017 (2) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in S.Tr. No. 309 of 2015 (arising out of Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2015) pending in the court of learned Fast Track Court- I, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

However, considering the detention of the petitioner, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within two 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 for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T