Manoj Kumar Singh @ Jhalu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26804 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2013 Thana -TEDHAGACHH District- KISANGANJ ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Singh @ Jhalu son of Late Lakhi Pd. Singh, resident of Jariya Bhitta, Police station- Fatehpur (Teragachh), District- Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Hussain, Advocate For the State : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-06-2017 This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Sessions Trial No.967 of 2013 arising out of Terhagach P.S. Case No.17 of 2013. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail in the aforesaid sessions trial was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2014 in Cr. Misc. No.36621 of 2014. Charges against the petitioner in the sessions trial have been framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though eleven witnesses have already been examined by now, there are six other witnesses to be examined. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody since long and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

I have learned counsel for the petitioner. No body

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26804 of 2017 (2) dt.28-06-2017 2/2 appears on behalf of the State.

On perusal of the record it would be evident that a minor girl aged about thirteen years was allegedly ravished by the petitioner. It is stated that during trial the victim has supported her case.

Keeping in mind the gravity of the offence and the advanced stage of trial, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kishanganj is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to renew his prayer for bail before the court of sessions and in that circumstance the trial court shall assign specific reason as to why the trial of the petitioner could not be concluded within the stipulated period of six months while considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner on merits.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T