Upendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9923 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2015 Thana- DUMRAUN District- Buxar ====================================================== Upendra Yadav, Son of Ram Samhut Yadav, Resident of Village- Pratap Sagar, P.O. Purana Bhojpur, Police Station- Dumraon(Naya Bhojpur), District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Dumraon P.S. Case No. 171 of 2015, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 326, 337 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Buxar.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been refused on merit. The report about stage of the trial of the petitioner has been received through Letter No. 24, dated 19.03.2018 to the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge-VI, Buxar, which disclosed that in the Session trial of the petitioner, the prosecution evidence has been closed after recording the statement of the accused and record is running for defence evidence in connection

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9923 of 2018(3) dt.18-04-2018 2/2 with Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2016, the record of counter case i.e. S.T. No. 196A of 2016 is running for recording the statement of two accused, who are military personnel and he expected that the trial will be concluded within few months.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail rejected. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months by taking all steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

Let the copy of this order be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Buxar.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T