Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34786/2017rejected

Rajesh @ Raju Sah @ Raju Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-02Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34786 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 2015 Thana -AKHODHIGOLA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Rajesh @ Raju Sah @ Raju Gupta, son of Surendra Sah, Resident of Village- Ahibaranpur, Police Station- Akorigola, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Amrendra Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew his prayer of bail which was earlier rejected vide order dated 30.06.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 20114 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 19.06.2015, the trial has not been concluded within nine months as per direction of this Court and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded. Other co-accused have been allowed bail and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the petitioner is husband and the witnesses have supported the allegation and further the dead body was also cremated.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34786 of 2017 (2) dt.02-08-2017 2/2 In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Akorigola P.S. Case No. 66 of 2015 (S.Tr. No. 50 of 2016), pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-4th, Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T