← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20290/2018rejected

Saroj Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2018-04-11Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20290 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2015 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Saroj Paswan, Son of Chandradeep Paswan, Resident of Village- Ajad Bigha, P.S. Amba, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 23.05.2017, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14869 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 20.07.2015, other coaccused of this case are on bail, the trial has not been concluded within the time given by this Court and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded.

The learned APP opposes the prayer of bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and the doctor has found several external injuries on the body of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance. The witnesses

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20290 of 2018(2) dt.11-04-2018 2/2 have supported the prosecution case during investigation. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of petitioner, again his such prayer stands rejected in connection with S. Tr. No. 121 of 2016/85 of 2016, arising out of Amba P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Aurangabad. However, learned trial Court is again directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

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