Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16849/2024bail rejected

Mukesh Rajhans @ Mukesh Kumar Rajhans v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-21Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16849 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2019 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Mukesh Rajhans @ Mukesh Kumar Rajhans S/o Late Surenu Mohan Rajhans @ Surendra Mohan Rajhans R/o Mohalla - Murtujachak (Mritujachak), Mirjanhat, P.S. - Babarganj, Dist. - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ansul, Adv.

Ms. Shweta Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.255/2020, arising out of Mojahidpur (Babarganj) P.S. Case No.91/2019, registered for the offences under sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions JudgeXVIth, Bhagalpur.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the 6th attempt of the petitioner to seek regular bail. It is next submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2019. It is next submitted that from the side of the prosecution, the witnesses have been examined and cross-examined by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16849 of 2024(4) dt.21-06-2024 2/2 petitioner and now the petitioner intends to get the defence witnesses examined.

4. The learned APP submits that since the trial from the side of the prosecution has concluded and now it is turn of the petitioner to get the defence witnesses examined, as such, the petitioner, at this stage, now does not deserve bail. It is also submitted that it is upon the petitioner to ensure that the defence witnesses are examined expeditiously.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T