Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24193/2018rejected

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ram @ Guddu Ram @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

2018-04-25Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24193 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -118 Year- 2013 Thana -GARDANIBAGH District- PATNA ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ram @ Guddu Ram @ Guddu S/o Late Baiju Ram, R/o Mohalla- Ambedkar Colony, Yarpur , P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by orders dated 05.10.2016 and 03.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 44126 of 2016 and 20164 of 2017 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 20.05.2016, there was direction to conclude the trial within nine months but up till now no prosecution witness has been examined and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded, postmortem report is not consistent with the prosecution version.

The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24193 of 2018 (2) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the assailant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, at present again prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with S.T. No. 289 (A) of 2014 arising out of Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 118 of 2013 pending in the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna.

However, considering detention of the petitioner the learned trial court is again directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within six 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) Abhay/- U T