Soni Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25430 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -321 Year- 2016 Thana -TURKAULIYA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Soni Devi Wife of Naresh Shahni, Resident of Village-Khoda Mansinga, P.S.-Sugauli, District-East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Umeshnand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 07-06-2017 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2017 arising out of Turkaulia P.S.Case No. 321 of 2016 for the offences alleged under Sections 364, 34, 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned 12th Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari.

The name of the petitioner has transpired in course of investigation, by her own husband, namely, Naresh Sahani in his confessional statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner and she is in jail custody since 27.07.2016, therefore, she may be allowed privilege

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25430 of 2017 (2) dt.07-06-2017 2/2 of bail at this stage.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out that in the present case charges have already been framed and the trial has began. He has further shown that the bail application of another co-accused, namely, Surendra Sahani has been recently rejected by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 7381 of 2017. Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the trial has began and one of the witnesses has been examined, instead of giving privilege of bail to the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with liberty to renew her prayer for bail before the court below after completion of six months if the trial is not concluded. The State is directed to ensure production of all the witnesses within the aforesaid period on the date(s) to be fixed by the court below, failing which the matter would be reported to the concerned Superintendent of Police.

The application is thus dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) singh/- U T