Moinul Haque v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3358 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2016 Thana- BALRAMPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Moinul Haque, S/o Late Abdul Haque, R/o Village- Salernpur Siro Tola, P.S.- Balrampur, Distt- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Balrampur P.S. Case No.131 of 2016 /G.R. No.4325 of 2016 registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No.14213 of 2017 on merit. Further submission is that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, is in custody since 18.11.2016.

The report regarding the stage of the trial, as called for vide order 07.02.2018 passed by this Court, regarding the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3358 of 2018(3) dt.14-03-2018 2/2 present stage of the case, has been received from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Katihar, from which it appears that the charge has been framed against the petitioner on 03.07.2017 but in spite of direction given to the prosecution to produce the witness for examination, not a single witness has been produced by the prosecution for examination. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail stands rejected. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Katihar, is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, within one year by taking all effective steps. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after one year.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T