Mukesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27462 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2015 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mukesh Rai, S/o Harendra Rai, Resident of Village- Rampur Kichani, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard Sri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This is second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner ( husband of the deceased) and in custody in connection with Dasari P.S. Case No. 185 of 2015 (corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2017) registered for the offence under Sections 304(B) / 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that despite the fact that during trial five prosecution witnesses have been examined, they have not supported the prosecution case. He accepts that ten persons were cited as prosecution witness in the charge-sheet .

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27462 of 2018(2) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 Sri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since trial is going on and out of ten prosecution witnesses five prosecution witnesses have already been examined this Court may not interfere with the matter. Considering the fact that trial is going on and out of ten charge -sheeted witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined, there is no reason to review my earlier order. The prayer for bail again stands dismissed. However, while dismissing, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 28.3.2016, it is necessary to observe that the learned trial court and prosecution may take appropriate steps, so that, the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. The petition stands dismissed with above observation. (Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T